Compared to their European and Asian counterparts, American students continue to languish. This is according to the Programme for International Student Assessment, a triennial evaluation of student competency conducted by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). A provision of the No Child Left Behind Act was the federal monitoring of student achievement within states and across demographic boundaries. Such testing has revealed that when the scores of traditionally low-achieving student groups are excluded, the United States performs at roughly second in the world. This means that academic failure has been largely isolated to these underserved groups (specifically, English language learners and poor students).
There is, however, a way out. In the most comprehensive study to date regarding American charter schools, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University discovered that charter schools benefit English language learners and impoverished students the most. Trends regarding poor and foreign students were unmistakable. Of the 16 states examined, the charter schools in the poorest states showed the greatest improvement over their public counterparts.
For some time, there have been accusations of charters cream skimming the best students from public schools. There is evidence, however, to believe that this is not true. Professor Caroline Hoxby, who has conducted extensive research on educational economics and school choice, has studied the charter schools of Arizona and Michigan. In both states, charters did not rob public schools of underperforming students. Despite Arizona having the highest percentage of charter students in the nation, there were no demographic signs of cream skimming or even reverse cream skimming.
The National Bureau of Economic Research found separately that North Carolina's 100 charter schools did not adversely affect test performance in public schools. In fact, performance increased by 1 percent, more than usual. The Stanford study also revealed that states with charter school caps (like North Carolina) tended to suffer slightly less charter improvement. Stanford showed that Arizona's charters were comparable.
Because of South Carolina's unusually high percentage of impoverished students, it makes sense to allow for the easy introduction of charter schools. Only 40 currently exist in the state — with few being in high-poverty areas (e.g., the "Corridor of Shame"). There is evidence to believe that charters offer real improvement. In an age of austerity, states are looking for ways to save money and not jeopardize state services. Charter schools offer a way out for both poor students and policy makers.
— James Strickland, fourth-year history and political science student