1. 1
Reducing Educational Disadvantage in Australia:
Are there lessons to be learned from US charter schools?
Master of Teaching (Secondary) Research Thesis
Jennifer Ames 268089
Acknowledgements
i.
Introduction
 i.i Overview
 i.ii Key terms
 i.iii Methodology
 i.iv Limitations and assumptions
ii.
Why do we need to focus on
disadvantage in the education
system?
 ii.i General impacts of disadvantage
 ii.ii Impacts of disadvantage in the Australian context
iii.
What can we learn about
educating disadvantaged
students from the charter
school movement in the
United States?
 iii.i Evidence for charter school impacts
 iii.ii High expectations for academic outcomes and
behaviour
 iii.iii Other strategies
 iii.iv Negative impacts and limitations of the research
iv.
Could these lessons be applied
in Australia?
 iv.i Instilling a high expectations culture in Australian
schools
 iv.ii Limitations
v.
Conclusion
 v.iii Implications for future research
 v.ii Summary
References

2. 2
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, thanks go to Suzanne Rice for agreeing to take me on as a Masters student, and
for allowing me to extend my project from six to twelve months. You have been an amazing source of
insight and information, and have guided me through this entire process calmly and confidently, two
attributes I was often lacking in myself, particularly as the deadlines approached nearer and nearer.
Thanks also to my friends and family for reading and editing various draft forms of the thesis, and for
providing me either with distractions to help take my mind off educational research or support to
stay the course, depending on what was needed at the time.
Finally, a very big thank you to my fiancé, Phil Barker. I could not have completed this thesis without
your loving support and encouragement, nor, most frustratingly (yet also most essentially) without
your constant reminders that I needed to continue working on my thesis when all I wanted to do was
relax. I know this is a much better thesis because of your efforts to keep me working as hard as
possible on it.

3. 3
i. Introduction
i.i Overview
Socio-economic disadvantage, as indicated by employment status, occupation, education attainment
and income/wealth, has been repeatedly shown to negatively impact a student’s educational
outcomes in a variety of ways (for example: Coleman et al., 1966; Haveman & Wolfe, 1995; Jencks,
1972; Rothman & McMillan, 2003; Rumberger, 2011; Willis, 1977; Wilks & Wilson, 2012). Despite
providing a high quality of education in comparison to many OECD (Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development) nations, Australia also has relatively high inequity, meaning that the
correlation between a student’s socio-economic background and educational performance is quite
strong (Thomson et al., 2010). Over the past decade a variety of government policies designed to
reduce this educational inequity has been implemented in Australia. Yet there has been little
Australian research into the potential of school governance mechanisms to serve as a means to
reduce inequality.
There has, however, been an increasing push by almost all Australian governments towards making
Australian public schools increasingly autonomous, notably the current federal Independent Public
Schools Initiative. Recent research on charter schools (autonomous public schools) in the United
States has indicated that some have a significantly positive impact on educational outcomes for
disadvantaged students (CREDO, 2013; Angrist, Pathak & Walters, 2012; Gleason et al., 2010). The
consistent theme throughout the research on effective charter schools notes the importance of a ‘No
Excuses’ school culture, which prioritises high expectations of students’ academic achievement and
behaviour. Given the current policy environment in Australia around school autonomy, research into
whether or not Australia should adopt the effective the practices found in successful charter schools
in order to positively impact disadvantaged students is both warranted and timely. Yet to date there
appears to be no Australian research conducted examining this issue.
This thesis examines three research questions: first, why do we need to focus on disadvantage in the
education system? Second, what can we learn about educating disadvantaged students from the
charter school movement in the United States? Finally, could these lessons be applied in Australia? In
order to answer the first question, a review of literature on the impact of disadvantage was
conducted, both generally and in Australia. In order to address the second question this research
project undertook a problem-oriented document analysis, examining literature on charter school
effectiveness specifically for disadvantaged students. To answer the third question, analysis of the
Australian education system and relevant Australian education policies was undertaken to determine
whether and how any successful strategies discovered could potentially be applied to the Australian
context. This study was conducted through the lens of the school effectiveness research (SER)
paradigm, which argues that with the right strategies schools can reduce the impact of disadvantage
on students’ outcomes (Luyten, Visscher, & Witziers, 2005).
i.ii Key terms
Educational disadvantage: This term is contested by some researchers (Tormey, 2010) but synthesis
of key literature on the topic (Boldt & Devine, 1998; Natriello et al., 1990; Day, Van Veen, &
Walraven, 1997) reveals a common definition, which is used in this review: educational disadvantage
is experienced by students who are less able to experience success during and after their schooling
due to a variety of economic, social and cultural factors beyond their control. ‘Success’ here is
measured by schooling attainment, income levels, and specific life outcomes (e.g. welfare receipt),
after Haveman & Wolfe (1995).

4. 4
Socio-economic status (SES): using the definition proffered by Marks et al. (2000), socio-economic
status here refers to ‘a finely graded hierarchy of social positions which can be used to describe a
person’s overall social position’ and is defined by ‘employment status, occupational status,
educational attainment and income and wealth’ (p. 10). Socio-economically disadvantaged
individuals are those who are disadvantaged in respect to either one or a combination of those
indicators. In the Australian context the term ‘disadvantage’ can also ‘encompass elements that are
not generally understood as socio-economic, such as family structure, Aboriginality, ethnicity, and
disabilities’ (Marks et al., 2000, p.11).
Charter schools: charter schools are publicly funded but privately run schools, usually with more
flexibility and autonomy than traditional public schools (TPS), accountable for their results to an
authoritative public body. They aim to improve student achievement compared to TPS (Finn, Manno,
& Vanourek, 2001). Since the first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1992, the charter school
movement has grown rapidly, and there are now over 2.3 million students enrolled in more than
6000 charter schools across the United States (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2013).
Charter schools disproportionately educate students from disadvantaged backgrounds, notably
students living in poverty, black students, Hispanic students and English language learners (CREDO
2013), partly because several states have given preferential treatment (in terms of applying for a
charter) to schools targeting disadvantaged students. These schools have been highly contentious in
both political and educational debates, and have been subjected to numerous studies evaluating
their performance on a variety of levels (for example: Abdulkadiroglu et al., 2009; Bifulco & Ladd,
2006; Buddin & Zimmer, 2005; CREDO, 2009a, 2013; Davis & Raymond, 2012; Gleason et al., 2010;
Hoxby, Murarka, & Kang, 2009; Mathematica Policy Research Group, 2012; Teasley, 2009; Tuttle et
al., 2013). A frequently recurring theme in much of this literature is the fact that charter school
performance varies markedly across and between states, regions, schools and grade levels, as well as
for different student groups, meaning that while there are many high-performing charter schools
there are also charter schools which appear to produce weaker learning outcomes amongst their
students compared to equivalent TPS.
i.iii Methodology
This study’s central question (understanding why and how certain charter schools are able to
diminish the effects of educational disadvantage) is aligned with the goals of qualitative analysis, as it
‘attempts to understand, interpret and explain complex and highly contextualised social phenomena’
(Kamberelis and Demetriadis, 2005, p.17). This research is also situated within the constructivist
epistemological perspective, since the evaluation of existing charter school literature, and the
analysis of how effective practices could be applied to the Australian context, requires synthesis of
what I believe to be the most important, effective and replicable/transferable keys to the charter
schools’ success. Using the theoretical paradigm of interpretivism to guide this study has aided in
avoiding ‘too many preconceptions about what [would] be discovered’ during the research process,
allowing me to remain open-minded as the study progressed (MacNaughton, Rolfe, & Siraj-
Blatchford, 2010, p.14).
The nature of this research project made document analysis the most appropriate method, as
developing ‘a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents’ (Bowen, 2009, p.27) has
been my primary task. More specifically, this project falls into the third of three categories of
document-based analysis outlined by Lankshear and Knobel (2004): ‘research that uses texts to
advance substantive findings about the world’ (p. 118). As with all methods, document analysis has
its limitations. Love (2003) notes that the primary shortcoming of using documents ‘is that they are
noninteractive and nonreactive,’ which causes problems when the documents cannot be checked for

5. 5
accuracy and when their ‘original meanings’ cannot always be clearly determined (p. 86).
Furthermore, documents may be unrepresentative, they may lack objectivity or may be deceptive in
some way, whether deliberately or unconsciously (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Finally, using documents in
a research inquiry can leave the researcher open to accusations of biased selectivity. Yet document
analysis was an appropriate sole method for this thesis because, given the limited time-frame, scope
and funding for this study, more time-consuming and costly research methods (e.g. interviews with
charter school administrators in the United States) were not feasible. Moreover, since there has been
a vast proliferation of literature about charter schools, an evaluation that searches for a pattern of
effective practices is timely. In addition, given that charter schools have been operating across the
United States for the past 22 years the broad ‘coverage’ of time and location provided by document
analysis (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994) made it an attractive method. This study employed a problem-
oriented approach to document analysis, accepting that as the research progressed it would become
clearer which sources were relevant, and that ‘more questions [would] occur’ as subject-specific
knowledge deepened (Duffy, 2010, p.126). This was particularly important given the breadth and
depth of literature available on the topics of student disadvantage and charter schools, which made
it difficult to immediately locate the most relevant sources at the start of the research process.
An exhaustive review of all literature on disadvantage and charter schools was not possible, so a Best
Evidence Synthesis (BES) approach has been used to select and review relevant literature. First
outlined by Robert Slavin (1986), the BES approach serves as an ‘alternative to both meta-analytic
and traditional reviews’ (p. 5). When BES was first conceived, meta-analytic reviews were criticized
for their robotic approach to the review and synthesis of literature, particularly the inclusion of
studies of questionable methodology and relevance and the willingness to sacrifice discussion of the
contents of the original studies (Cook & Leviton, 1980; Slavin, 1984). Traditional narrative reviews, on
the other hand, were criticized for selecting and analysing studies in an unsystematic and poorly
justified manner (Cooper, 1984; Jackson, 1980). Taking the best of each approach, the BES approach
aims to combine the ‘quantification and systematic literature search methods of meta-analysis with
the detailed analysis of critical issues and study characteristics of the best traditional reviews’ (Slavin,
1986, p.10), and that is what has been attempted in this project.
The search term Australia + charter schools yielded extremely limited relevant literature through the
University of Melbourne’s Discovery search tool, suggesting that the potential for applying successful
lessons from charter schools in the United States to the Australian context has not yet been explored.
To find literature on disadvantage and its impact on education, both broadly and in Australia,
literature searches were conducted using the following terms: educational disadvantage;
disadvantage + impact + school; Australia + educational disadvantage and Australia + disadvantage.
Literature was then selected for review based on relevance and citation counts.
To explore the second research question (“What can we learn about educating disadvantaged
students from the charter school movement in the United States?”) potentially relevant literature
was found using the search terms charter school + effectiveness and charter school + disadvantage.
Given the large number of responses, literature was selected for review based primarily on
sample/study size, locale studied and most recent date of publication. These last two criteria were
important because firstly, it was necessary to ensure that the findings would not be overly influenced
by the specific characteristics of one single region, and secondly, the charter landscape is rapidly
changing in the United States as new schools open and poorly performing schools close. These
documents were then analysed to determine if a pattern of successful strategies for combatting
educational disadvantage appeared across a series of documents and a variety of school settings.

6. 6
To address whether and/or how these findings could be applied in Australia, a review of recent
education policy related to school governance was conducted through the relevant federal, state and
territory websites. A literature search was also conducted with the search terms: school governance
+ Australia; school autonomy; school autonomy + Australia and turnaround schools + Australia.
i.iv Limitations and assumptions
The most notable limitation of this research is that I could select, review and synthesise only a
portion of the vast array of literature on charter schools and the Australian policy documents
available. If the documents collected were incomplete then the study may suffer from ‘biased
selectivity’ (Yin, 1994, p. 80). Yet by following the BES approach I have aimed to ‘make [my]
procedures explicit and open, and … say enough about the studies [I] review to give readers a clear
idea of what the original evidence is’ (Slavin, 1986, p.7), thereby mitigating some of these problems.
Furthermore, this research also needed to carefully assess the credibility of all documents in order to
find the most reliable interpretation, examining who produced each document, for whom, when and
in what context (Macdonald & Tipton, 1993). Not being well-versed in the American educational and
political landscape I was limited in my ability to assess the credibility and/or reliability of some of
these documents, particularly in terms of their own potentially biased selectivity of data. However, I
have used indicators such as citation counts and the credibility of the journal or publisher in order to
assess document credibility in these instances.
There are three key assumptions inherent in this thesis. The foremost is that there are specific
strategies/policies in place that allow successful charter schools in the United States to improve
outcomes for educationally disadvantaged students. The next is that such strategies/policies can be
measured, and the results of their implementation deduced in a clear way from existing literature.
The third is that Australian schools and policymakers will continue to seek ways to reduce the impact
of educational disadvantage on Australian students, and will therefore be willing to engage with the
findings of this thesis.

7. 7
ii. Why do we need to focus on disadvantage in the education system?
ii.i General impacts of disadvantage
Numerous studies have shown that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to
struggle during and after their schooling (Coleman et al., 1966; Feinstein, 2003; Haveman & Wolfe,
1995; Jencks, 1972; Rothman & McMillan, 2003). Much research has been devoted to the causal links
between low socio-economic background and poor educational achievement yet there remains some
debate about this relationship: on the one hand researchers argue that the connection relates to the
quality and quantity of material resources available (Connell, 1977), while others contend that it
stems from a reduced parent/community capacity to provide the types of support that aid
educational success (Willis, 1977; Coleman, 1987), also referred to as ‘cultural capital’ (Bourdieu,
1973). In Australia it appears that these cultural factors, such as disadvantaged parents having lower
educational attainment, lower aspirations and placing a lower value on education, may be more
closely linked to educational disadvantage than material factors (Considine & Zappalà, 2002;
Williams, 1987).
Regardless of the debate about potential causes for this connection, research into the impacts of
disadvantage on students’ educational outcomes has produced uniformly adverse findings.
Compared with their peers, disadvantaged students are more likely to have lower school attendance
(Ready, 2010) and are less confident in their abilities (Kellett, 2009). In terms of academic outcomes,
an achievement gap is already evident between students from low and high socio-economic
backgrounds in kindergarten (Lee & Burkam, 2002), and disadvantaged students across the world
continue to perform worse academically as they advance through school (OECD, 2006). Coming from
a disadvantaged background also reduces students’ likelihood of completing high school (Homel et
al., 2012; Rumberger, 2011) and their likelihood of attending university (Wilks & Wilson, 2012).
Why does it matter if students achieve at a low level, or if they drop out of school early? Research
shows myriad negative impacts on quality of life for those who do not attain sufficient skills and
knowledge during their schooling. When students drop out of school without gaining qualifications it
can have an immense financial impact on their lives, as they are more likely to earn less when
employed, more likely to become unemployed and more likely to remain unemployed for longer
periods of time (Rumberger & Lamb, 2003; OECD, 2001; Barro, 1996). Leaving school early is not only
financially harmful, but has also been linked with poorer health outcomes and increased rates of
crime (Owens, 2004; Rumberger, 1987) as well as increased rates of substance abuse (Swaim et al.,
1998). Even for those disadvantaged students who complete high school, the outlook does not
become much brighter if they have not achieved academic success, which research suggests is more
likely for low SES students. Poor literacy and numeracy skills are associated with reduced earnings
(DfES, 2003), an increased risk of unemployment (OECD, 2009), as well as decreased access to
opportunities for further training (OECD, 2003). Yet it is not only at the individual level that the
impact of not gaining these skills and qualifications can be felt; impacts are also felt at the societal
level since governments must address and fund the welfare needs of those who are unemployed and
suffering poorer health outcomes (Owens, 2004). Conversely, if governments are able to implement
effective policies to increase literacy and numeracy skills this can boost productivity and economic
competitiveness and increase civic participation, which in turn increases social cohesion and benefits
the entire society (Vila, 2005).
Knowing that socio-economic disadvantage has a strong and negative impact on students’
educational outcomes, and that poor achievement in school is linked with myriad problems and
difficulties beyond school, governments need to act to reduce the impact of socio-economic
disadvantage in the school setting in the interests of their citizens and society as a whole.

8. 8
ii.ii Impacts of disadvantage in the Australian context
In Australia the need for policies or structural reforms to address educational disadvantage is
particularly great. Australia is reported as being one of the highest Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) performers among OECD countries, with ‘positive learning environments,
strong pedagogical leadership and well-prepared teachers’ (OECD, 2013, p.4). Yet analysis of the
2009 PISA results revealed that Australia has ‘significant levels of educational disadvantage related to
socio-economic background’, with the performance gap between students from low and high SES
backgrounds equivalent to up to three years of schooling (Thomson et al., 2010, p.xiv). Moreover,
while we remain a strong performer overall, the impact of a student’s background on their
educational outcomes is stronger in Australia than in similar OECD countries. In Canada, for example,
large differences in the socio-economic backgrounds of students are not associated with large
performance differences among students, yet in Australia slight differences in students’ socio-
economic background are associated with large performance differences (OECD, 2009). In addition,
since 2000 we have been unable to reduce the proportion of Australian students reading below
proficiency level 21
, both when compared with other countries and when compared with previous
Australian data, and Australia’s overall PISA reading performance has not improved over the same
time period (OECD, 2013).
Why is there such a strong correlation between student background and achievement in Australia?
The answer may lie in part in our increasingly stratified school system and the flight of high income
families away from government schools. In 2011, 68.9% of primary students attended government
schools, 19.4% Catholic schools and 11.7% independent schools. At secondary level the enrolment
proportions were 60.5% for government schools, 21.9% for Catholic schools and 17.6% for
independent schools (ACARA, 2013). There has been a significant trend since the 1980s of high
income families migrating to the Catholic and independent systems (Preston, 2013; Ryan & Watson,
2004). Between 1998 and 2008 private school enrolments grew by around 20%, compared with a
1.2% rise in government school enrolments (Donnelly, 2012). This ‘segregation’ of our school system
(Teese, 2011) means that government schools now enrol a disproportionately high percentage of
traditionally disadvantaged students: those from the lowest SES quartiles, indigenous students and
students with a disability (Gonski et al., 2011). This has equity implications for governments because
of the differences in results between the sectors. In the 2009 PISA testing, government school
students were outscored by an average of 35 score points by students in Catholic schools, who were
in turn outscored by an average of 21 score points by students in independent schools (Thomson et
al., 2010; see also Williams & Carpenter, 1990; Anderson, 1990).
The stratification of our school system is an important contributor to these differences in outcomes
because research indicates that the overall SES of the student cohort in a school has at least as strong
an influence on a student’s achievement as the individual SES of that student (Fuchs et al., 1998;
Hanushek et al., 2001; Henderson, Mieszkowski, & Sauvageau, 1978). That is, students appear to
influence one another’s attitudes and aspirations, which in turn influence student effort and
achievement. As Teese (2011) explains, attending a school with a mix of children, including those
from higher socio-economic backgrounds, improves achievement for disadvantaged students
because they gain access to cultural advantages and an academically-minded ethos unavailable to
them at home. In other words, ‘Ambitions are contagious; if children sit next to others from higher
social classes, their ambitions grow’ (Rothstein, 2004, p.130). Of course, as has been noted, we
cannot attribute the differences between student achievement in the three school sectors entirely to
1
PISA has six levels of proficiency, of which Level 2 is described as the minimum standard: ‘Students who do not
attain the PISA baseline proficiency Level 2 in reading lack the essential skills needed to participate effectively
and productively in society. A key priority for all countries is to ensure that as many students as possible attain at
least Level 2.’

9. 9
the characteristics of students’ peer groups (Lamb, Hogan, & Johnson, 2001), but it is evident that
students’ peer groups do impact their educational outcomes. This raises concerns for the equity of
Australia’s education system, since the decline in the average SES of students attending government
schools will most likely result in the accelerated loss of ‘positive peer group characteristics’, further
negatively impacting the educational outcomes of government schools and students (Ryan & Watson,
2004: 36).
Evidently, the Australian education system is in need of solutions to address the serious problems
posed by educational disadvantage. There is currently an intense political focus on school autonomy
and choice, which many argue allow schools to innovate and adapt in order to best meet the needs
of their students (Caldwell & Spinks, 1992, 1998, 2008; Hargeaves, 2010, 2012). Both the current and
previous federal governments committed to increasing autonomy in schools throughout Australia
(COAG, 2012; Pyne, 2014), while the current governments of Western Australia, New South Wales,
the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia have also introduced initiatives to increase school
autonomy at the state/territory level (Department of Education (WA), 2014; Department of
Education & Communities (NSW), 2014; Department of Education and Training (ACT), 2011;
Legislation Reform Unit, 2010). In addition, Australia has recently adopted numerous education
initiatives from the United States, such as the use of standardised testing (e.g. The National
Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy, or NAPLAN) to evaluate schools and students, and an
Australian version of the alternative teacher pathway program Teach for America. Given this current
education policy climate, it is time to now examine another education initiative from the United
States, one which is brings together the concepts of school autonomy and educational disadvantage:
the charter school movement.

10. 10
iii. What can we learn about educating disadvantaged students from the charter school
movement in the United States?
iii.i Evidence for charter school impacts
As outlined previously, charter schools are publicly funded privately run schools, with more flexibility
and autonomy than traditional public schools (TPS), and which disproportionately educate students
from disadvantaged backgrounds. Charter schools have a number of aims, but their primary aim is to
improve student achievement compared to TPS (Finn, Manno, & Vanourek, 2001). They can also act
as vehicles for carrying out pioneering experiments in education due to their freedom to innovate
(Tung & Ouimette, 2007), the most successful of which can then be transferred back to public
schools (Nathan, 1996).2
Finally, supporters also claim that charter schools offer choice to families
who would otherwise have little (if any), and create healthy competition with TPS (Zimmer et al.,
2012; Finn, Manno, & Vanourek, 2000).
Since the first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1992, the charter school movement has played
a central and controversial role in education debates; charter schools are often seen as direct (and
potentially hostile) competitors to TPS, and their increased flexibility has angered and worried union
members and bureaucrats who fear the potential repercussions of increasingly independent schools.
Therefore, as charter schools have multiplied, pressure has mounted for them to demonstrate
greater student achievement and there is a wide range of literature examining the specific impacts of
charter schools. Due to the scale of the charter school movement, it is not surprising that the results
are mixed. Some charter schools, networks and regions have been found to have positive student
outcomes (Abdulkadiroglu et al., 2009, 2011; Curto & Fryer, 2011; Dobbie & Fryer, 2013; Hoxby &
Rockoff, 2004; Hoxby, Murarka and Kang, 2009). Other studies have shown charter schools to have
limited or no impact on student achievement (Zimmer et al., 2012; Gleason et al., 2010; Zimmer et
al., 2009). Yet other research has found evidence that charter schools may negatively affect student
achievement (CREDO, 2009a; Bifulco & Ladd, 2006; Eberts & Hollenbeck, 2001). These negative
impacts and the limitations of the research on charter schools will be discussed in detail in section
iii.iv.
Yet a pattern of evidence does emerge from recent research across the United States, despite these
mixed results: many charter schools have a positive and statistically significant impact on
disadvantaged students, often more so than for other students.
The 2013 Stanford University Centre for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) study employed
the virtual control record (VCR) method of analysis, matching each charter school student with a
non-charter ‘virtual twin’ (p. 8), which allowed analysis to be made of the ‘value-add’ of charter
schools in terms of academic growth (Betts & Tang, 2008). The study revealed that while results vary
widely across states and between schools, attendance at a charter school added an average of ‘eight
additional days of learning in reading and similar learning gains in math’ per year compared to TPS
(CREDO, 2013, p.80). Most notable, though, were the large average gains for traditionally
disadvantaged students who attended charter schools: Hispanic students who were also English
language learners gained 50 additional days of learning in reading and 43 additional days in math,
black students in poverty gained 29 additional days in reading and 36 additional days of learning in
math, and smaller yet significant gains were also made by other students in poverty, English language
learners and special education students.
In their summary of a large-scale randomized trial of the effectiveness of charter schools, Gleason et
al. (2010) found that charter schools with more economically disadvantaged students had a
2 However, Preston et al. (2012) found little evidence of such innovation in charter schools.

11. 11
significantly greater positive impact on students’ mathematics achievement than schools with a
smaller proportion of disadvantaged students: the estimated impacts on achievement for the former
were +0.18 standard deviations (SD) where the estimated impacts for the latter were -0.24 SD.
Conversely, they showed that charter schools with a large proportion of white students had more
negative impacts on student achievement, with an association of -0.196 SD for reading scores and
-0.469 SD for math scores.
Angrist, Pathak and Walters (2012) found that in their analysis of Massachusetts charter schools the
urban charter schools were far more effective than their non-urban counterparts, the latter of which
often had negative impacts on student achievement. When they looked more closely, they found
that attendance at an urban charter middle school was particularly beneficial for black and Hispanic
students, with ‘especially large achievement gains’ made by students eligible for the free or reduced-
price lunch program (FRL) – a key indicator of poverty (p. 8). Their analyses suggested that urban
charter schools were particularly effective for poor and minority students, and they showed that
‘47% of the urban advantage’ in reading gains could ‘be explained by the level of student
demographics,’ while for math the estimate was 51% (p. 15).
Similarly, Abdulkadiroglu et al. (2011) showed that in over-subscribed Boston charter schools, which
cater for a majority of disadvantaged students, pupils scored approximately 0.4 SD higher per year in
math and 0.2 SD higher per year in reading than students in TPS. In the schools they studied 73% of
the students were eligible for FRL, 70% were black and 18% were Hispanic.
Gronberg and Jansen’s (2005) assessment of Texas charter schools showed that students who were
academically ‘at-risk’ performed slightly better in charter schools than their peers in TPS, but not
significantly so. They also revealed that ‘at-risk’ students made greater academic gains in charter
middle schools than those who attended charter schools but were not at-risk, with average math Z-
score growth of 0.077 for at-risk students and 0.041 for not at-risk students, and average reading Z-
score growth of 0.091 for at-risk students and 0.051 for not at-risk students.
Another recent study found positive results for traditionally disadvantaged students who attended
KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) charter schools (Tuttle et al., 2013). The KIPP charter school
network is specifically focused on improving educational outcomes for low-income children, and 96%
of KIPP students are either black or Hispanic, with 83% coming from low-income households.
Evaluation of KIPP students and matched comparison groups revealed that attendance at a KIPP
middle school had a statistically significant positive impact on students’ performance in reading,
math, science and social studies. After three to four years at a KIPP school students were gaining
approximately eleven months of additional learning growth in math, eight months of additional
learning growth in reading, 14 months of additional learning growth in science and 11 months of
additional learning growth in social studies. Acknowledging the limitations of the matched
comparison group design, specifically with regards to its inability to capture immeasurable factors
such as student and/or parent motivation, Tuttle et al. (2013) implemented an experimental lottery-
based design to ensure there was no bias in their estimated achievement impacts. Contrary to the
other findings reported in this section, the authors found ‘no evidence’ that ‘student characteristics
[were] associated with impacts’, with the exception of very limited evidence of higher impacts on
reading in KIPP schools with higher percentages of students identified for special education (p. 61).
Yet given the relative homogeneity (in terms of disadvantage) of the student populations attending
KIPP schools, it is not surprising that smaller distinctions between students’ backgrounds did not
appear to impact achievement levels, since the trend appears generally for all students from
disadvantaged backgrounds to improve their educational outcomes by attending a charter school.

12. 12
Other studies which have reported positive student gains associated with attendance at charter
schools have examined charter schools that enrol predominantly disadvantaged students (in terms of
income or ethnicity) and so the gains they report might also be connected to this general pattern of
improved outcomes for disadvantaged students. For example, Hoxby, Murarka and Kang’s (2009)
study revealing strong achievement gains for students in New York charter schools was conducted on
schools in which 91% of students received FRL, and in which 61% of students were black and 29%
Hispanic.
Increasing achievement on standardised tests is not the only way in which charter schools can
positively impact their students. Dobbie and Fryer (2011) found a variety of medium-term non-test
impacts for students attending charter schools in the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), schools which
serve a disproportionately high black population (84.5%) with a large majority of students eligible for
FRL (82%). Students who attended the charter schools studied were 14.1% more likely to enrol in
college compared with their peers who applied to attend but did not win the attendance lottery.
Female students were 12.1% less likely to become pregnant as a teenager, and male students were
4.3% less likely to be incarcerated. Booker et al. (2011) found that in Florida and Chicago, attendance
at a charter school was associated with a 7 to 11% increase in a student’s probability of graduating
from high school within five years and a 10 to 11% increase in the likelihood of a student attending
college. When measuring college persistence (remaining enrolled in and completing a college degree),
charter students from Florida were estimated to have a 13 percentage point advantage over students
from non-charter students. Furthermore, the mere existence of charter schools may also have a
positive impact on students who remain at TPS. Winters (2012) found that contrary to popular
criticisms that charter schools ‘cream’ the best students and thereby harm the public system, there is
some evidence that increased attrition rates of students to charter schools has a positive, albeit small,
effect on the academic outcomes of the students who remain in TPS.
Having thus established that some charter schools are able to have significant positive impacts on
school achievement and life outcomes for disadvantaged students, it is important to establish what
strategies, policies and/or structures work in these effective schools so that we can learn from and
potentially replicate them.
iii.ii High expectations of academic outcomes and behaviour
However, finding the key to improved educational outcomes is not a simple task. Tuttle et al. (2013)
reveal that despite their determined efforts to identify and measure a range of factors potentially
contributing to effectiveness in KIPP middle schools, they still could not explain most of the variation
between the schools, possibly because there was ‘some other factor or set of factors’ at work that
was not included in their research, or because higher achievements were ‘driven by a combination of
features’ that could not be separated (p. 65). Moreover, if a relationship is found between a school-
based practice and improved student performance, we should not immediately jump to the
conclusion that it is a causal relationship. Hoxby, Murarka and Kang (2009) go to some lengths to
explain the difference between showing ‘associations between characteristics and achievement
effects’ and making unverifiable ‘causal claims’ about the effects of certain charter characteristics on
achievement (p.V-1). Dobbie and Fryer (2013) discuss the same caveat, noting that unobserved
factors could be driving increased school effectiveness. Yet a few clear strategies for improving
outcomes for disadvantaged students do emerge from the literature, the most consistent of which is
the impact of school culture on student achievement; several studies have now repeatedly found a
link between improved student outcomes in charter schools and the establishment of a school
culture prioritising high expectations of academic results and behaviour.

13. 13
Although the concept of high expectations may be ‘difficult to quantify’ (Fryer, 2011, p.14), we can
define it in general terms. In his study of 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools, Carter (2000)
reported that a fundamental feature of the effective schools was the establishment of a culture of
achievement based on measurable goals. He explained that the core of this ‘No Excuses’ mindset was
the belief that ‘All children can learn’ (p. iv). Thernstrom and Thernstrom (2003) similarly noted that
in the few ‘terrific schools that served highly disadvantaged minority kids’ there was the same clear
message: ‘No Excuses.’ No Excuses schools, they explained, were schools in which ‘Every student
[was] expected to work hard to acquire the skills and knowledge that tests measure,’ and in which
there were ‘great leaders and great teachers who [had] high academic and behavioural standards’ (p.
4). These expectations were clearly articulated to all staff, students and parents, and were expected
to be upheld by all three groups.
In their study of results from Massachusetts charter schools educating middle and high school
students between 2001 and 2011, Angrist, Pathak and Walters (2012) found that the effectiveness of
successful charter schools was related to their adherence to this high expectations approach. Charter
schools had improved results if they emphasised academic success and hard work, as well as focusing
on behavioural expectations. In particular, this approach was found to be effective for disadvantaged
students attending urban schools. The study revealed that ‘attendance at urban No Excuses charter
schools produces large effects on discipline as well as achievement; attendance at other charter
schools has little effect in either domain’ (p. 18). Not only were disciplinary measures more rigid in
urban No Excuses charter schools (as measured by increased suspensions) and associated with
reduced truancy, but the No Excuses charter schools studied also produced reading and math gains
that were 0.18 and 0.27 SD larger than the effects of other charter schools. Of great interest for this
thesis is their finding that in schools adhering to a No Excuses approach, other factors that might be
expected to improve charter effectiveness, such as time in school, per-pupil expenditure and peer
effects, did not appear to play a role in improved outcomes.
In order to determine whether non-urban students would benefit in the same ways if No Excuses
policies were implemented in non-urban schools, Angrist, Pathak and Walters (2012) analysed a non-
urban charter school that had implemented several similar ideas to the No Excuses policy, including
uniforms, contracts and a reward system. However, the results of their analysis were mixed; students
who gained a place in the kindergarten lottery were shown to have significantly reduced outcomes in
both reading and math, while middle and high school lottery winners made positive, but not
significant, gains. The authors posited that either the No Excuses approach did not work effectively
for the non-urban demographic mix (i.e. less disadvantaged students), or that the school in question
had not adopted enough of the No Excuses framework to be effective. I would argue that these
mixed results may be due to the value of this No Excuses approach for students of different ages and
backgrounds; young students in kindergarten may have felt overly anxious and uncomfortable in
such a rigorous environment, while the higher average SES levels of the students at all age groups
may have made the No Excuses approach less effective, since research shows such students would
most likely have come from homes with higher academic aspirations and therefore would not have
needed as much emphasis to be placed on behaviour and academic achievement at school.
Dobbie and Fryer’s (2013) analysis of the most effective practices in New York charter schools
catering primarily for disadvantaged students showed that a focus on high academic and behavioural
expectations was associated with math gains that were 0.081 SD higher than other charter schools,
and reading gains of +0.059 SD. Controlling for other school policies that might have influenced these
outcomes, the authors found that the math and reading gains remained higher in those charter
schools which prioritised high academic and behavioural expectations: the annual math gains were
0.044 SD higher and the annual reading gains were 0.030 SD higher than in other charter schools.

14. 14
When examining the effectiveness of KIPP charter schools in New York, which also enrol a
disproportionate number of disadvantaged students, Tuttle et al. (2013) found evidence that schools
with more comprehensive school-wide approaches to behaviour management had more positive
reading and math impacts; specifically, an increase by 1 SD in a school’s score on the index measuring
school-wide behaviour approaches was associated with a 0.06 SD increase in the estimated impact
on reading achievement and a 0.08 SD increase the estimated impact on math achievement.
Importantly, even when the authors controlled for other factors in the model this relationship
between school-wide behaviour systems and student performance remained significant.
Similarly, Hoxby, Murarka and Kang (2009) showed that in other New York charter schools teaching
disadvantaged students, following a ‘small rewards/small punishments’ disciplinary policy was
strongly and significantly associated with improved achievement. That is to say, schools which
focused strongly on discipline and behaviour at the classroom level by expecting and rewarding pro-
social behaviour while simultaneously punishing small infractions seemed to have more positive
impacts on student results than schools which focused on dealing with major behavioural infractions
at a more administrative level. In a one-variable regression analysis this type of disciplinary policy
was associated with improved achievement gains of 0.13 SD, and in a multiple-variable regression
analysis this figure rose to 0.31 SD. Hoxby, Murarka and Kang (2009) also found that charter schools
with a mission statement emphasising academic performance (a strong indicator of a high
expectations academic culture) were more likely to show positive achievement effects for their
student population: the impact was 0.17 SD in a one-variable regression analysis and 0.32 SD in a
multiple-variable regression analysis when compared with charter schools without an academically-
focused mission statement.
One component of this school-wide emphasis on academic achievement is the effective use of
frequent assessment and feedback to inform both teachers and students about progress and learning
needs. Dobbie and Fryer (2013) found that in New York charter schools that provided feedback
(whether formal or informal) ten or more times per semester, students made annual math gains that
were 0.080 SD higher than other schools, and reading gains that were 0.066 SD higher. Furthermore,
charter schools that had five or more interim assessments during the school year and had more than
three differentiation strategies to help students based on their performance had annual math gains
that were 0.050 SD higher than other charter schools, and reading gains that were 0.034 SD higher (p.
17).
This positive impact of a strong school culture with clear expectations is not a new finding, and is a
core focus in School Effectiveness Research (SER) literature. In 1979 Edmonds reviewed available
literature and concluded that improved academic achievement was associated with high
expectations for all students and a focus on academic achievement. Others have since corroborated
the finding that effective schools have positive school cultures focused on academic achievement –
namely, high expectations (Purkey & Smith, 1983) particularly in schools catering for disadvantaged
students (Kannapel & Clements, 2005; Ragland et al., 2002). Sammons, Hillman and Mortimore’s
(1995) review of SER found that high expectations and concentration on teaching and learning
(including academic emphasis and focus on achievement) were two of the key characteristics of
effective schools. Muijs et al.’s (2004) review similarly concluded that creating a positive school
culture, including setting and communicating high expectations, was a key feature of improving
schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. Reeves’ (2000) study of the practices of high-
achieving schools serving disadvantage students, or ‘90/90/90 schools’ (schools in which 90% or
more of the students were eligible for FRL, 90% or more of the students were members of ethnic
minority groups, and 90% or more of the students met the district or state academic standards in
reading or another area), further supports this finding. He noted that the most important practice
evident across all of these high performing schools was their ‘laser-like focus’ on student

15. 15
achievement, visible via displays of exemplary student work and frequently updated data about
student achievement and progress throughout all classrooms, corridors and offices.
The importance of a culture of high expectations, also called the No Excuses approach, is of particular
interest for the present study, given what we know about the flight of middle class students out of
Australian government schools, and the resulting loss of academic culture in these schools.
iii.iii Other strategies
Several other elements have been investigated as potentially giving successful charter schools an
‘edge’ over less successful schools, and four stand out repeatedly in the research: differences in
governance and administration; length of instructional time; staffing composition and flexibility; and
operational age of the school. However, the research reveals mixed results for the impact of each of
these elements on student achievement.
GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
Perhaps the most fundamental characteristic of charter schools is their independence from the
bureaucracy associated with TPS and public school districts; depending on the state, charter schools
can be authorised and governed by a range of entities including local school boards, non-profit
organisations and state governments. Therefore there is considerable variation in their governance
and administrative structures. Rebarber and Zgainer (2014) note that 74% of charter schools in the
United States operate ‘in a completely independent manner’ with the remaining 26% either part of a
charter school network or operated by a separate Education Service Provider, such as KIPP (p. 14).
This variety could be one key to explaining variance between charter schools, and may help
policymakers identify and replicate effective charter governance structures. Unfortunately,
researchers investigating the potential link between achievement and charter school authorisers
and/or governance structures have not yet found any strong associations. Carlson, Lavery and Witte
(2012) examined charter schools in Minnesota, a state which allows a wide variation of charter
governance structures, but did not find evidence of a relationship between these structures and
student test results. Similarly, Gleason et al. (2010) found that student outcomes were not
significantly associated with a charter school’s degree of autonomy or accountability, nor with which
body/ies authorised and/or governed the school. Both the CREDO study (2013) and Hoxby, Murarka
and Kang (2009) similarly found no significant achievement effects related to differences in charter
school management and governance. This supports the general findings within broader school
effectiveness literature that different school governance structures and accountability mechanisms
have little impact on the adjusted achievement of students (Malen, Ogawa & Kranz, 1990; Cuttance,
1988; Willms, 1987; Hofman, 1995). Although, as Ainley and McKenzie (2000) note, the research
evidence for measuring the effect of school governance on student outcomes is not extensive.
This would appear to suggest that a charter school’s performance is not dependent on who
authorises its charter and who manages the school, but rather what policies and practices are in
place within the school to improve student outcomes – such as the creation of a culture of high
expectations.
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME
Charter schools often provide students with increased instructional time; a flexibility afforded them
because they are not required to adhere to state laws regarding length or total number of school
days. Between 2009 and 2012 the proportion of charter schools with an extended school year
increased from 14% to 27%, while the proportion of charter schools with an extended school day
increased from 23% to 48% (Rebarber & Zgainer, 2014). In their investigation of New York charter

16. 16
schools, Hoxby, Murarka and Kang (2009) showed that a longer school year was positively associated
with achievement in the schools they studied. Dobbie and Fryer (2013) also found that in New York,
the highest achieving charter schools had both a longer instructional year and day than other charter
schools; schools with 25% or more additional instructional time had annual learning gains that were
0.080 SD higher in math and 0.048 higher in reading. Yet they also found that low achieving charter
schools still provided approximately 16.8% more instructional days per year than TPS in New York
without improving results, which raises questions about whether instructional time was the element
responsible for the learning gains. Adding further doubt to the value of extended instructional time,
Angrist, Pathak and Walters (2012) found that in their analyses instructional time appeared
‘unrelated to variation in charter school treatments effects’ (p. 17). Similarly, Gleason et al. (2010)
argued that charter school impacts were ‘inconsistently related to the length of the school day’ (p.
68).
Aronson, Zimmerman and Carlos (1998) have provided some useful nuance to the debate about
extending instructional time. They explained that simply extending the school year or day will make
little difference, because what matters is a school’s ability to utilise instructional time well by having
a high proportion of ‘engaged and academic learning time’: the amount of time when students are
‘actively engaged in learning at an appropriate level of difficulty’ (p.5-6). This concept was also
highlighted in Hoxby, Murarka and Kang’s (2009) findings that the number of minutes spent teaching
English was positively associated with increased student achievement.
Therefore increased instructional time, in and of itself, does not appear to be strongly connected
with improved charter school impacts on disadvantaged students; what is more important is what
schools do with the time they have.
STAFFING COMPOSITION AND FLEXIBILITY
Due to their increased autonomy, charter schools generally have more flexibility in terms of staffing,
and this has also been investigated as another possible cause for the differences between
performance in charter schools and TPS. Once again, there is mixed evidence. Gleason et al. (2010)
found no relationship between level of teacher experience and charter school impacts on reading or
mathematics. Tuttle et al. (2013) found a small correlation between more experienced principals and
positive impacts in reading and math across KIPP schools, but according to their analysis no other
characteristics of staff were related in a significant way to student achievement. Dobbie and Fryer
(2013) found that charter schools with more certified teachers, and charter schools with more
teachers holding a masters degree, actually had lower math gains than other charter schools. Angrist,
Pathak and Walters (2012) report that urban charter school teachers in Massachusetts were less
likely to be licensed compared with teachers in TPS, but did not find a link between performance and
teacher training. They did note, however, that many effective urban charter schools utilised their
increased staffing flexibility, and were ‘quick to replace teachers who appear[ed] to be struggling or
otherwise ill-suited to the school's approach’ (p. 20). This willingness to fire teachers appears to be
an important factor in charter schools with higher achievement. Dobbie and Fryer (2013) found that
selective teacher hiring was associated with charter school success, and Fryer’s (2011) report on
turning around low-performing Houston TPS included replacing large numbers of ineffective teachers
as a key element for school transformation. On a related note, Hoxby, Murarka and Kang (2009)
found that charter schools with teacher pay systems based on performance and/or duties
undertaken, as opposed to traditional seniority/credential-based pay, demonstrated greater impact
on student achievement.
It thus seems that the staffing composition of a charter school, with regards to teachers’ levels of
experience, does not consistently impact upon its results. However, having increased flexibility with
regards to hiring/firing and pay systems may be an important key to improving student results.

17. 17
OPERATIONAL AGE
Despite the vast differences between charter schools across the United States, one common factor is
their relative newness compared with TPS. The greater the length of time that a charter school has
been operating has been generally been found to positively impact on its effectiveness for students,
with one notable exception: Gleason et al. (2010) found little evidence that student achievement was
related to a charter school’s age. On the contrary, the CREDO (2013) report revealed data showing
that new charter schools performed worse than continuing charter schools in almost all areas and for
almost all student groups. Gill et al. (2007) investigated 14 studies using longitudinal data and
showed that charter schools had the most negative effects on student outcomes in their first year of
operation, but that the longer they operated the more likely it was that student achievement would
improve. Hanushek et al.’s (2007) analysis shows that in Texas, students attending charter schools
made smaller test score gains than they would have if they had remained in a TPS, but that the
difference in the outcomes was smaller in charter schools with more experience. After three or more
years of operating, the charter schools made no statistically significant different impact compared
with TPS. Carruthers (2012) revealed that in North Carolina successively older charter schools
produced improved results, although she noted that all charter schools of all ages in that state
produced lower math achievement than TPS. Sass (2006) found that while math and reading
outcomes for charter school students in Florida were lower in new charter schools, after four years
of operating charter schools were able to produce similar results for their students when compared
with TPS.
How can we explain this phenomenon? Carruthers (2012) investigated whether this trend was
attributable to faculty development and improved teacher retention rates in older charter schools
but concluded that improved retention rates only played ‘a modest role’ in charter improvement
over time (p. 289). A more robust explanation may be the fact that students changing schools
generally tend to exhibit a decline in their achievement immediately following the change (Sorin &
Iloste, 2006; South, Haynie, & Bose, 2007). New charter schools will obviously enrol exclusively new
students in their first year, and many start with one year level and grow one grade at a time.
Therefore it should not be surprising that student performance is weakest in the early years of a
charter school’s existence.
In summary, from the literature analysed in this study the strongest association with increased
charter student achievement, particularly for disadvantaged students, appears to exist in schools
with strong cultures of high expectations for academic achievement and student behaviour. The
achievement of students generally seems to increase with the operational age of charter schools,
and mixed results are found for type of charter school governance and/or administration, length of
instructional time, and staff composition. The impacts of these findings for policymakers are outlined
in section iv.
iii.iv Negative impacts and limitations of the research
As noted earlier, when charter schools are examined closely the results are not all positive. Aside
from the potential for charter student achievement to slow down by comparison to students
remaining at TPS, there may be other harms, even in successful charter schools. Tuttle et al. (2013)
found that attending a KIPP school was associated with an increase in student-reported ‘undesirable’
behaviours, including students losing their temper, arguing or lying to their parents, and ‘giving
teachers a hard time’ (p. xix). Another issue for policymakers to be wary of is the potential for charter
schools to end up segregating students, with more students from disadvantaged and minority
backgrounds attending these schools than TPS (Fiske & Ladd, 2000; Rapp & Eckes, 2007).

18. 18
Along with identifying the potential harms posed by the introduction of charter schools, it is equally
important to acknowledge the limitations of the research used in this study. First of all, we should be
wary of borrowing major policies and ideas from overseas without sufficiently adapting or
researching them, due to the cultural and contextual differences between countries (Steiner-Khamsi,
2004). Furthermore, as Reid (2011) has asked, ‘why would the government not borrow policies from
those countries which are above us in PISA outcomes (e.g. Finland, Korea, Canada), rather than a
country which is many places below us?’ (p.7). However, since current Australian governments
appear determined to increase school autonomy it makes sense to examine successful charter
schools to see what lessons could be applied here to schools with increasing degrees of autonomy.
Moreover, the diversity and size of the United States education system means there may still be
lessons to be learned from successful schools, despite the potential failings of other schools.
Secondly, much of the analysis of charter schools is presented with significant caveats. First of all, as
Allen (2013) explains, it is difficult to make generalisations about charter schools because by their
very nature they are innovative and therefore there is huge variability both across charter schools
and between charter schools and the TPS to which they are often compared. In addition, as readers
will have noticed, due to a lack of national studies, much of the literature used is state-based, and
therefore comparisons between different states and extrapolations made on the basis of single state
results need to be treated with caution. In addition, Zimmer et al. (2012) note that research designs
vary between studies, making it difficult to compare results. They also argue that it is particularly
difficult for researchers to ‘isolat[e] school effects from family and other external inputs’ because
charter students often differ from TPS students by their own self-selection into charter schools
(p.216). Yet Angrist, Pathak and Walters (2012) found little evidence to support this theory, and in
fact their results suggested ‘that score gains vary inversely with peer achievement and family income’
(p.17). This is connected with the concept outlined earlier, that students from more disadvantaged
backgrounds appear to do better in charter schools than their peers. Another concern revolves
around research based on oversubscribed charter schools, which allows random assignment of
students to either a treatment group (charter school) or control group (TPS) to ensure that any
observed differences between the two groups can be traced to the charter school. As Tuttle, Gleason,
and Clark (2012) explain, the results may not have strong implications for the many charter schools
that are not oversubscribed, because those schools that are oversubscribed probably have waitlists
because they are better than schools without waitlists, thus undermining the applicability of these
findings to other charter schools.
Questions have also been raised about the methods used to measure student growth in many of
these studies. For example, in their meta-analysis of literature on the effects of charter schools on
student achievement, Betts and Tang (2011) argued that ‘the majority of charter school studies take
snapshots of student achievement at one point in time, or compare successive cohorts of students in
a given grade,’ making them vulnerable to variable biases (p. 3). More specifically, Hoxby (2009a;
2009b) highlighted potential issues with the statistical accuracy of CREDO’s data, although in their
responses CREDO argued that these concerns were unfounded (CREDO 2009b; 2009c). Hoxby’s own
widely publicised work (Hoxby, Murarka, & Kang, 2009), which reported strong achievement gains
made by New York charter students, also came under criticism for using an inappropriate set of
statistical models and a weaker criterion for statistical significance than is conventional, thus
probably overstating the effects of the charter schools being studied (Reardon 2009). Camilli (2013)
raised questions about the Mathematica Policy Research Group’s use of a scale for measuring annual
growth in KIPP schools across different grades, noting that their use of the ‘equal interval’
assumption was ‘viewed as unwarranted by many measurement experts’ (p. 5). Yet CREDO (2013)
has taken heed of this type of criticism, explaining that the additional days of learning they use is an
‘accessible measure’ which ‘should be used as a general guide rather than as empirical
transformations’ (p.13).

19. 19
Perhaps the greatest limitation of this research is its reliance on the use of test scores to measure
student achievement. In the United States standardised achievement tests have arguably become
‘the central tool for holding educators and systems accountable’ (Koretz, 2002: 543). However, most
achievement tests are not able to measure the broad range of skills and standards that students are
expected to have mastered by a certain age, due to fact that not all skills can be tested within the
format of a standardised test. This prevents educators from obtaining a genuine understanding of a
student’s overall achievement, while also allowing some teachers to ‘teach to the format of the test’,
knowing that certain easily-assessable skills will be over-represented (Corcoran, 2010:3).
Yet, since this style of testing is the most widely used tool for measuring student achievement it
remains arguably the best means currently available of measuring student growth. Furthermore, the
sheer quantity of evidence pointing to the value of instilling a culture of high expectations in
successful charter schools, sourced from a range of studies using a variety of methodologies and
from diverse states using a range of achievement tests, provides some assurance that the findings of
this thesis are robust.

20. 20
iv. Could these lessons be applied in Australia?
iv.i Instilling a high expectations culture in Australian schools
What lessons can Australian policymakers take from the charter school movement? While there are
certainly positive signs for some students attending some charter schools, the range of studies
finding either no additional learning gains or worse outcomes for students attending other charter
schools means that the results of America’s charter school experiment are probably too mixed to
warrant investing heavily in a similar system here at the present time. Furthermore, current moves
within Australia to foster school autonomy (outlined in section ii.ii) do not find any strong basis in
research. If autonomy is a primary driver for improved school and student outcomes then Victoria,
where autonomy has been a central element of schools since 1993 (Hinz, 2010), should be the best
performing state in Australia, controlling for other factors. Yet Victorian students’ performance on
national and international tests is not significantly different to that of their peers in New South Wales,
which has had a highly centralised school system until very recently (ACARA, 2010, 2011, 2012;
Thomson et al., 2010). Moreover, international research has shown that the degree of autonomy
present in a country’s schools is not consistent with performance; Hong Kong performs well
internationally and has a high level of school autonomy, yet Finland and Korea fare better with less
autonomy (OECD, 2010a, 2010b). Therefore creating a new system of highly autonomous public
schools will probably not do much to improve outcomes for disadvantaged Australian students, in
and of itself.
Governments should, however, take heed of the findings that the most successful charter schools all
appear to prioritise high expectations of students’ academic achievement and behaviour, and that
developing this type of culture within a school is strongly associated with improved student
achievement, particularly for disadvantaged students. Therefore, Australian schools, policymakers
and governments aiming to improve outcomes for disadvantaged students should prioritise the
development of academic cultures in schools teaching students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
There are already signs that this is a priority in many contexts. The Melbourne Declaration on
Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008) explicitly notes that in order to promote
equity and excellence schools need to promote cultures of ‘high expectations’ for the educational
outcomes of all students, and specifically for Indigenous students, for whom disadvantage and low
expectations are frequently the norm. In terms of improving outcomes for Indigenous students, the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare highlights the need for a strong school culture, which
includes ‘high expectations of success for both staff and students’ (Helme & Lamb, 2011, p.1). The
What Works. The Work Program, supported by the Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations, similarly notes that one of the most important features of successful remote
schools improving outcomes for Australia’s most disadvantaged indigenous students is ‘adopting a
high expectations culture’ for students and staff (What Works: The Work Program, 2012). More
broadly, the Teaching and Learning School Improvement Framework developed by the Australian
Council for Education Research (ACER) (Masters, 2010) reveals the leadership practices that appear
most related to school improvement in all schools, one of which is a clear expectation,
communicated to students, teachers and the community, that the school ‘expects all students to
learn successfully’ – which ACER defines as a ‘no excuses’ philosophy (p.1).
Yet how do we go about instilling this type of culture in disadvantaged schools where expectations
for behaviour and academic achievement have traditionally remained quite poor? Research on so-
called ‘turnaround schools’ (schools with persistently weak student growth data, usually in
disadvantaged areas, which receive targeted interventions in order to become high-performing
schools over a period of time) provides some clues. Herman et al.’s (2008) guide to turning around

21. 21
‘chronically low-performing schools’ in the United States reveals four key steps in the turnaround
process: signalling the need for ‘dramatic change’ through strong leadership, maintaining a
‘consistent focus on improving instruction’, making visible improvements early on (what they term
‘quick wins’) and building a ‘committed staff’ (p. 8). The vital role of the school leader in raising
expectations is affirmed in numerous studies (Leithwood, 2010; Kowal, Hassel, & Hassel, 2009; Duke,
2006), and Zbar, Kimber and Marshall (2008) argue that school culture must improve before other
changes can occur within the school.
However, while there is much research justifying the development of a ‘no excuses’ style of school
culture, and significant guidance for the American educational landscape, there a need for more
structured and specific guidance for Australian schools wishing to change their culture. Some
organisations are already working to help alter the cultures in poorly performing schools, although
their ability to impact change is generally limited to a specific region or state. Dr. Chris Sarra’s
Stronger Smarter Institute works with school leaders and staff in Indigenous communities to ‘chang[e]
the tide of low expectations in Indigenous education’ by using the framework of ‘high expectations
relationships’ (Stronger Smarter Institute, 2013, p.3). West Australian organisation Fogarty EDvance
has developed a School Improvement Program which aims to improve the educational outcomes of
children in low-SES schools by supporting school leaders to develop and implement whole-school
improvement programs (Gray et al., 2013). Victorian organisation Effective Philanthropy has
developed its own Successful Schooling Toolkit (Hill, 2011), which provides another guide for school
leaders on how to set high expectations of ‘Behaviour, Potential and Performance’ for students from
disadvantaged backgrounds.
Perhaps the most relevant source of information is a recent Grattan Institute publication (Jensen &
Sonnemann, 2014) outlining how ‘Australia’s most troubled schools are turning around their
performance’ (p.1). Among the five steps that are consistently identified in their selected turnaround
schools, the first is ‘strong leadership that raises expectations’ and the fourth is the ‘development of
a positive school culture’. After providing five case-studies of successful turnaround schools, the
authors identify two requirements for change to occur: ‘a method to commit all parties… to reform
low-performing schools’, and ‘capacity building and evaluation and accountability mechanisms that
continually develop and reinforce change’ in the turnaround schools. They then use the empowered
management program (EMP) in Shanghai as a useful example of a policy designed to improve
teaching and learning in low-performing schools on a system-wide scale. The EMP pairs high- and
low-performing schools in order to change the behaviour and practices of staff and students in low-
performing schools through collaboration, capacity-building and ongoing evaluations. This provides a
possible blueprint for Australian reform, although the authors refrain from outlining how this policy
could be replicated in the Australian context.
We can also take some guidance from reform efforts in the United States. Fryer (2011) reported on
the results of an experiment in overhauling low-performing schools in Houston, and showed that
implementing No Excuses practices was associated with positive outcomes for students. In order to
instil the required ‘culture of high expectations and college access,’ the public schools each: received
‘a rubric for the school and classroom environment’ to make the expectations clear to all,
implemented school parent-student contracts, and set specific performance goals for each student
for which the principals were held accountable (p.3). In each school the principal ‘played the pivotal
role in setting the culture and expectations of the school,’ in particular by expressing clear
expectations to, and providing training for, staff, including a first week of ‘culture camp’ which
‘focused on establishing the behaviors, expectations, systems, and routines necessary to ensure
success in the schools’ (p.49). In Denver, seven low-performing TPS serving a high proportion of
disadvantaged students were chosen to be transformed by introducing a No Excuses culture,
replacing principals and the vast majority of teachers, increasing instructional time, and increasing

22. 22
student assessments to provide more data for teachers to use. These school transformations were
highly successful, with treatment effect sizes of between 0.226 and 0.256 SD in math and between
0.073 and 0.102 SD in reading (Fryer, 2011, p.29). In Chicago, 29 failing TPS were taken over by the
Academy for Urban School Leadership, and their chosen strategies to improve the schools were quite
similar: establishing a new culture of high expectations, replacing principals and ineffective teachers,
and using a data-driven approach to student instruction. Here, too, the transformations appeared
successful, with students in the chosen secondary schools achieving scores between 0.051 and 0.097
SD higher on math state tests and between 0.022 and 0.027 SD higher on reading tests (Fryer, 2011,
p.30).
Australian policymakers can (and should) use these international examples to inform future research
into developing a guide for Australian schools serving disadvantaged students to improve their school
cultures.
iv.ii Limitations
One major limitation when it comes to improving school culture is the need to find principals and
teachers able and willing to enforce and support the high expectations necessary for success. Fryer
(2011) notes than in order to find 19 principals with ‘the values and beliefs consistent with the
leaders in successful charter schools and a demonstrated record of achievement’ over 300 principal
interviews were conducted (p.32). This is a problem faced by other successful charter schools (Tucker
& Codding, 2002) and would most likely pose a similar issue in Australia if a new policy directed at
improving school cultures were introduced, but should not prohibit attempts to reform school
culture altogether. Another major issue is the question of how to take successful strategies from
individual schools and apply them at the system level without relying on a few high performers to
enter struggling schools, since schools often return to their ‘past poor practices’ once those
individuals move on (Jensen & Sonnemann, 2014, p.7).

23. 23
v. Conclusions
v.i Implications for Future Research
It seems, then, that improving school culture in order to improve outcomes for Australia’s
disadvantaged students is a difficult challenge, but one which has a firm basis in the research and
should therefore be attractive to a range of stakeholders. If Australian policymakers wish to respond
to the findings of this thesis, more research is needed into specifically how the wide range of
disadvantaged Australian schools with a record of weak student achievement could effectively
implement and maintain a new school culture which prioritises strong academic achievement and
high standards of behaviour. In particular, there is a need for research on how to achieve this kind of
change at a systemic level, so that we do not rely on a few key individuals to effect (perhaps
temporary) change in selected schools. An action research project would be of value, whereby a
group of schools is selected to participate in a program of school culture overhaul and the impacts
are reviewed systematically as the changes are implemented, in order to determine the best course
of action for system-wide improvement.
v.ii Summary
In summary, the evidence suggests that charter schools, as a mechanism of school governance alone,
may not be the ‘magic bullet’ we would hope for when it comes to improving outcomes for
disadvantaged students. Some charter schools are highly effective at improving student growth when
compared with traditional public schools, and many are highly effective specifically for disadvantaged
students, but others have little or no impact on student growth, and some have been shown to have
a negative impact on student outcomes. What is clear, however, is that creating a strong culture of
high expectations of behaviour and academic achievement is repeatedly associated with improved
outcomes for students, particularly in charter schools which enrol a large proportion of students
from disadvantged backgrounds. This finding is similar to a range of evidence found in School
Effectiveness Research literature more broadly. Therefore Australian governments, policymakers and
schools wishing to reduce the impact of educational disadvantage should seek to instill a culture of
high expectations in disadvantaged schools where students are falling behind their peers. Further
research is now needed in order to determine the most effective and sustainable way for the
Australian education system to set about improving school culture in disadvantaged schools at a
systemic level.

24. 24
References
Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J., Cohodes, S., Dynarski, S., Fullerton, J., Kane, T., & Pathak, P. (2009).
Informing the Debate: Comparing Boston’s Charter, Pilot and Traditional Schools. Boston: The Boston
Foundation.
Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J., Dynarski, S., Kane, T., & Pathak, P. (2011). Accountability and Flexibility
in Public Schools: Evidence from Boston's Charters and Pilots. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(2),
699–748.
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (2010). NAPLAN Achievement
in Reading, Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy: National Report for 2010. Sydney: ACARA.
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (2011). NAPLAN Achievement
in Reading, Persuasive Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy: National Report for 2011.
Sydney: ACARA.
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (2012). NAPLAN Achievement
in Reading, Persuasive Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy: National Report for 2012.
Sydney: ACARA.
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (2013). National Report on
Schooling in Australia 2011. Sydney: ACARA.
Ainley, J., & McKenzie, P. (2000). School Governance: Research on Educational and Management
Issues. International Education Journal, 1(3), 139–151.
Allen, A. (2013). Charter Schools and Academic Achievement. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.),
International Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 113-115). New York: Routledge.
Anderson, D. S. (1990). The Public/Private Division in Australian Schooling: Social and Educational
Effects. In L. J. Saha & J. P. Keeves (Eds.), Schooling in Australian Society: Sociological Perspectives.
Canberra: ANU Press.
Angrist, J. D., Pathak, P. A., & Walters, C. (2012). Explaining Charter School Effectiveness (IZA
Discussion Paper No. 6525). Bonn, Germany: IZA. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp6525.pdf
Aronson, J., Zimmerman, J., & Carlos, L. (1998). Improving student achievement by extending school:
Is it just a matter of time? San Francisco: WestEd. Retrieved from
http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/po-98-02.pdf
Barro, J. (1996). The Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Study (NBER
Working Paper No. 5698). Washington, DC: National Bureau for Economic Research. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w5698
Betts, J. R., & Tang, Y. E. (2008). Value-Added and Experimental Studies of the Effect of Charter
Schools on Student Achievement: A Literature Review. Seattle: National Charter School Research
Project, Center on Reinventing Public Education.

25. 25
Betts, J. R., & Tang, E. Y. (2011) The Effect of Charter Schools on Student Achievement: A Meta-
Analysis of the Literature. Bothell, WA: National Charter School Research Project, Center on
Reinventing Public Education.
Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. (2006). The Impacts of Charter Schools on Student Achievement: Evidence
from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy, (1)1, 50–90.
Boldt, S., & Devine, B. (1998). Educational disadvantage in Ireland: Literature review and summary
report. In P. Doyle (Ed.), Educational disadvantage and early school leaving (pp. 6-36). Dublin:
Combat Poverty Agency.
Booker, K., Sass, T., Gill, B., & Zimmer, R. (2011). The effects of charter high schools on educational
attainment. Journal of Labor Economics, 29(2), 377–415.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Browen (Ed.), Papers in the
Sociology of Education (pp. 71-112). London: Tavistock.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Buddin, R., & Zimmer, R. W. (2005). A closer look at charter school student achievement. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 351–372.
Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1992). Leading the Self-Managing School. London: Falmer.
Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1998). Beyond the Self-Managing School. London: Falmer.
Caldwell, B. J. & Spinks, J. M. (2008). Raising the Stakes: From improvement to transformation in the
reform of schools. London: Routledge.
Camilli, G. (2013). Review of “KIPP Middle Schools: Impacts on Achievement and Other Outcomes.”
Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from
http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-KIPP-middle-schools/
Carlson, D., Lavery, L., & Witte, J. (2012). Charter school authorizers and student achievement.
Economics of Education Review, 31, 254–267.
Carruthers, C. (2012). New schools, new students, new teachers: Evaluating the effectiveness of
charter schools. Economics of Education Review, 31, 280–292.
Carter, S. (2000). No Excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools. Washington,
DC: Heritage Foundation.
CREDO (Center for Research on Education Outcomes). (2009a). Multiple Choice: Charter School
Performance in 16 States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
CREDO (Center for Research on Education Outcomes). (2009b). Fact vs. Fiction: An Analysis of Dr.
Hoxby’s Misrepresentation of CREDO’s Research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from
http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/CREDO_Hoxby_Rebuttal.pdf

26. 26
CREDO (Center for Research on Education Outcomes). (2009c). CREDO Finale to Hoxby’s Revised
Memorandum. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from
http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/CREDO%20Finale%20to%20Hoxby.pdf
CREDO (Center for Research on Education Outcomes). (2013). National Charter School Study 2013.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
COAG (Council of Australian Governments). (2012). National Partnership Agreement on Empowering
Local Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education/empowering_local_schools/nat
ional_partnership.pdf
Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, (16)6, 32-38.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L.
(1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Connell, R. W. (1977). Ruling Class Ruling Culture: Studies of Conflict, Power and Hegemony in
Australian Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Considine, G., & Zappala, G. (2002). Factors influencing the educational performance of students
from disadvantaged backgrounds. In T. Eardley and B. Bradbury (Eds.), Competing Visions: Refereed
Proceedings of the National Social Policy Conference 2001 (pp. 91-107). Sydney: University of New
South Wales Social Policy Research Centre.
Cook, T., & Leviton, L. (1980). Reviewing the literature: A comparison of traditional methods with
meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 48, 449-472.
Cooper, H. M. (1984). The integrative research review: A systematic approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Corcoran, S. P. (2010). Can teachers be evaluated by their students’ test scores? Should they be? The
use of value-added measures of teacher effectiveness in policy and practice. New York: Annenberg
Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
Curto, V., & Fryer, R. (2011). Estimating the returns to urban boarding schools: Evidence from SEED
(NBER Working paper No. 16746). Washington, DC: National Bureau for Economic Research.
Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16746
Cuttance, P. (1988). Intra system variation in the effectiveness of schooling. Research Papers in
Education, 3(2), 183–219.
Davis, D., & Raymond, M. (2012). Choices for studying choice: Assessing charter school effectiveness
using two quasi-experimental methods. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 225–236.
Day, C., Van Veen, D., & Walraven, G. (Eds.). (1997). Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education;
Research, Policy and Practice. Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant Publishers.
Department of Education (WA). (2014). IPS: Fact sheet for parents and communities. Retrieved from
http://www.det.wa.edu.au/independentpublicschools/detcms/navigation/information-for-parents-
and-communities/fact-sheet/?oid=Category-id-10337602

27. 27
Department of Education & Communities (NSW). (2014). Local Schools, Local Decisions: Report Card.
Retrieved from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/about-us/our-reforms/local-schools-
local-decisions/LSLDReportCard.pdf
Department of Education and Training (ACT). (2011). Excellence and Enterprise: Advancing Public
Schools of Distinction. Retrieved from
http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/209423/Excellence_and_Enterprise.pdf
DfES (Department for Education and Skills). (2003). The Skills for Life Survey: A National Needs and
Impact Survey of Literacy, Numeracy and ICT Skills. London: Author. Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publicati
ons/eOrderingDownload/RR490.pdf
Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to close the achievement gap?
Evidence from the Harlem Children's Zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(3), 158-
187.
Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. (2013). Getting Beneath the Veil of Effective Schools: Evidence from New York
City. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4):28-60.
Donnelly, K. (2012). School Choice in Australia: An Overview of the Rules and Facts. Journal of School
Choice: International Research and Reform, (6)2, 290-294.
Duffy, B. (2010). The analysis of documentary evidence. In J. Bell (Ed.), Doing Your Research Project: A
guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science (5th ed., pp. 106-117). New
York: Open University Press.
Duke, D. L. (2006). What We Know and Don't Know About Improving Low-Performing Schools. Phi
Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
Eberts, R.W., & Hollenbeck, K.M. (2001). An examination of student achievement in Michigan charter
schools (Upjohn Institute Working Paper No. 01-68). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research. Retrieved from
http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1085&context=up_workingpapers.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for urban poor. Educational Leadership 37, 15-24.
Feinstein, L. (2003). Inequality in the Early Cognitive Development of British Children in the 1970
Cohort. Economica, 7 (277), 73–97.
Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter Schools in Action: Renewing Public Education.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2001). The radicalization of school reform. Society, 38(4),
58-63.
Fiske, E., & Ladd, H. (2000). When Schools Compete: A Cautionary Tale. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.

28. 28
Fryer, R. (2011). Injecting successful charter school strategies into traditional public schools: A field
experiment in Houston (NBER Working Paper No. 17494). Washington, DC: National Bureau for
Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17494.pdf
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High–achieving students’ interactions and
performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous
pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 227–267.
Gill, B., Timpane, M., Ross, K., Brewer, D., & Booker, K. (2007). Rhetoric versus Reality: What We
Know and What We Need to Know about Vouchers and Charter Schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.
Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C. C., & Dwoyer, E. (2010). The Evaluation of Charter School Impacts:
Final Report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/education/charter_school_impacts.pdf
Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K.,Carmen, L., Scales, B., & Tannock, P. (2011). Review of Funding for
Schooling: Final Report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Gray, J., Newhouse, P., Lock, G., Konza, D., Cambell-Evans, G., Budgen, F., & Shean, M. Evaluation of
the Fogarty EDvance Initiative: Stage 1. Perth: Edith Cowan Institute for Education Research.
Gronberg, T., & Jansen, D.W. (2005). Navigating newly chartered waters: An analysis of Texas charter
school performance. Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., Markman, J., & Rivkin, S. (2001). Does Peer Ability Affect Student Achievement?
(NBER Working Paper No. 8502). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved
from http://www.nber.org/papers/w8502
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., Rivkin, S., & Branch, G. (2007). Charter School Quality and Parental Decision
Making With School Choice. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5-6), 823–848.
Hargreaves, D. H. (2010). Creating a self-improving school system. Nottingham: National College for
Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services. Retrieved from
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/2093/1/download%3Fid%3D133672%26filename%3Dcreating-a-self-improving-
school-system.pdf
Hargreaves, D. H. (2012). A self-improving school system: towards maturity. Nottingham: National
College for School Leadership. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/15804/1/a-self-improving-
school-system-towards-maturity.pdf
Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1995). The Determinants of Children's Attainments: A Review of Methods
and Findings. Journal of Economic Literature, 33, 1829–78.
Helme, S., & Lamb, S. (2011). Closing the school completion gap for indigenous students. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Retrieved from
http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2011/ctgc-rs06.pdf

29. 29
Henderson, V., Mieszkowski, P., & Sauvageau, Y. (1978). Peer Group Effects and Educational
Production Functions. Journal of Public Economics 10, 97–106.
Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., & Darwin, M. (2008). Turning
Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides
Hill, R. (2011). Successful Schooling: Techniques & Tools for Running a School to Help Students from
Disadvantaged & Low Socio-economic Backgrounds Succeed. Melbourne: Effective Philanthropy.
Hinz, B. (2010). Labour's new education policy not that new. Retrieved from
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35694.html
Hofman, R. H. (1995) Contextual influences on school effectiveness: the role of school boards. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(4), 308–331.
Homel, J., Mavisakalyan, A., Nguyen, H., & Ryan, C. (2012) School completion: What we learn from
different measures of family background. (Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth Research Report
No. 59). Canberra: The National Centre for Vocational Education and Research.
Hoxby, C. (2009a). A Serious Statistical Mistake in the CREDO Study of Charter Schools. Author.
Retrieved from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/memo_on_the_credo_study.pdf
Hoxby, C. (2009b). A Statistical Mistake in the CREDO Study of Charter Schools. Author. Retrieved
from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/memo_on_the_credo_study%20II.pdf
Hoxby, C., Murarka, S., & Kang, J. (2009). How New York City's Charter Schools Affect Achievement.
Cambridge, MA: New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project.
Hoxby, C. M., & Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of charter schools on student achievement.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute of Economics Research Working Paper Series.
Jackson, G. B. (1980). Methods for integrative reviews. Review of Educational Research, 50, 438-460.
Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H. Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., & Michelson, S. (1972).
Inequality: A reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
Jensen, B., & Sonnemann, J. (2014). Turning around schools: it can be done. Grattan Institute.
Retrieved from http://grattan.edu.au/static/files/assets/518f9688/805-turning-around-schools.pdf
Kamberelis, G., Demetriades, G. (2005). On Qualitative Inquiry: Approaches to Language and Literacy
Research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kannapel, P. J., & Clements, S. K. (2005). Inside the black box of high performing high poverty schools.
Lexington, KY: The Pritchard Committee for Academic Excellence.
Kellett, M. (2009). Children as researchers: what we can learn from them about the impact of poverty
on literacy opportunities? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(4), 395-408.

30. 30
Koretz, D. (2002). Limitations in the use of achievement tests as measures of educators' productivity.
In E. Hanushek, J. Heckman, and D. Neal (Eds.), Designing Incentives to Promote Human Capital.
Special issue of The Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 752-777.
Kowal, J. M., Hassel, E. A., & Hassel, B. C. (2009). Successful School Turnarounds: Seven Steps for
District Leaders. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.
Retrieved from http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefSept09.pdf
Lamb, S., Hogan D., & Johnson, T. (2001). The stratification of learning opportunities and
achievement in Tasmanian secondary schools. Australian Journal of Education, 45(2), 153-167
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A Handbook for Teacher Research: from design to
implementation. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social Background Differences in
Achievement as Children Begin School. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Legislation Reform Unit (SA). (2010). Education and Early Childhood Services Legislation Reform
(Discussion Paper No 4: Employment provisions for staff in Government Education and Early
Childhood Services). Retrieved from
http://www.edlawreform.sa.gov.au/files/pages/files/Discussion_Paper_4.pdf
Leithwood, K. (2010). Turning Around Underperforming School Systems: Guidelines for District
Leaders. Edmonton, Alberta: College of Alberta School Superintendents. Retrieved from
http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10063916/h/Pre-
Conference/CASS_Research_Paper_3_Leithwood_Turning_Around_School_Systems.pdf
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Love, P. (2003). Document Analysis. In F. K. Stage and K. Mannins (Eds.), Research in the College
Context: Approaches and Methods (pp. 83–96). New York: Brunner Routledge.
Luyten, H., Visscher, A., & Witziers, B. (2005). School effectiveness research: From a review of the
criticism to recommendations for further development. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 16(3), 249-279.
Macdonald, K., & Tipton, C. (1993). Using documents. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching Social Life (pp.
187–200). London: Sage.
MacNaughton, G., Rolfe, S. A., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2010). Doing Early Childhood Research:
International Perspectives on Theory & Practice (2nd
Edition). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Malen, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-based management? A
case study of the literature—A call for research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. White (Eds.), Choice and
control in American schools (pp. 289–342). Philadelphia: Falmer.
Marks, G., McMillan, J., Jones, F. L., & Ainley, J. (2000). The Measurement of Socioeconomic Status for
the Reporting of Nationally Comparable Outcomes of Schooling. Canberra: Australian Council for
Educational Research and Australian National University.