A Descriptive Analysis of Cream Skimming and Pushout in Choice versus Traditional Public Schools

IF 1.7 3区 教育学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Adam Kho, R. Zimmer, A. McEachin
{"title":"A Descriptive Analysis of Cream Skimming and Pushout in Choice versus Traditional Public Schools","authors":"Adam Kho, R. Zimmer, A. McEachin","doi":"10.1162/edfp_a_00333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract One of the controversies surrounding charter schools is whether these schools may either “cream skim” high-performing students from traditional public schools or “pushout” low-achieving students or students with discipline histories, leaving traditional public schools to educate the most challenging students. In this study, we use longitudinal statewide data from Tennessee and North Carolina and linear probability models to examine whether there is evidence consistent with these selective enrollment practices. Because school choice programs managed by districts (magnet and open enrollment programs) have a similar ability to cream skim and pushout students, we also examine these outcomes for these programs. Across the various school choice programs, magnet schools have the most evidence of cream skimming, but this might be expected as they often have selective admissions. For charter schools, we do not find patterns in the data consistent with cream skimming, but we do find evidence consistent with pushout behaviors based on discipline records. Finally, some have raised concerns that students may be pushed out near accountability test dates, but our results suggest no evidence consistent with this claim.","PeriodicalId":46870,"journal":{"name":"Education Finance and Policy","volume":"17 1","pages":"160-187"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Finance and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00333","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Abstract One of the controversies surrounding charter schools is whether these schools may either “cream skim” high-performing students from traditional public schools or “pushout” low-achieving students or students with discipline histories, leaving traditional public schools to educate the most challenging students. In this study, we use longitudinal statewide data from Tennessee and North Carolina and linear probability models to examine whether there is evidence consistent with these selective enrollment practices. Because school choice programs managed by districts (magnet and open enrollment programs) have a similar ability to cream skim and pushout students, we also examine these outcomes for these programs. Across the various school choice programs, magnet schools have the most evidence of cream skimming, but this might be expected as they often have selective admissions. For charter schools, we do not find patterns in the data consistent with cream skimming, but we do find evidence consistent with pushout behaviors based on discipline records. Finally, some have raised concerns that students may be pushed out near accountability test dates, but our results suggest no evidence consistent with this claim.
与传统公立学校相比,选择中的奶油式瘦身和推出的描述性分析
摘要围绕特许学校的争议之一是,这些学校是否可以从传统公立学校“榨取”表现优异的学生,或者“排挤”成绩不佳的学生或有学科历史的学生,让传统公立学校来培养最具挑战性的学生。在这项研究中,我们使用来自田纳西州和北卡罗来纳州的全州纵向数据和线性概率模型来检验是否有证据与这些选择性招生做法一致。由于由地区管理的择校项目(磁铁和开放招生项目)具有类似的能力来培养学生,我们也研究了这些项目的结果。在各种择校项目中,吸引人的学校有最多的证据表明他们会撇奶油,但这可能是意料之中的事,因为他们通常都是选择性招生。对于特许学校,我们没有在数据中发现与略读奶油一致的模式,但我们确实根据纪律记录发现了与强迫行为一致的证据。最后,一些人担心学生可能会在临近问责考试日期时被赶出去,但我们的研究结果表明,没有证据与这一说法一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
46
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信