Economics of Education Review 31 (2012) 213–224 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Economics of Education Review jou rn al h om epa ge: www . elsevier.com/locate/econedurev Examining charter student achievement effects across seven states Ron Zimmer a,∗ , Brian Gill b,1 , Kevin Booker c,2 , Stéphane Lavertu d , John Witte e,3 a Vanderbilt University, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN 37203, United States b Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 955 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 801, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States c Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 600 Maryland Ave. SW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20024, United States d The Ohio State University, 110 Page Hall, 1810 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210, United States e University of Wisconsin, 110 North Hall, 1050 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706-1389, United States a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 14 June 2010 Received in revised form 5 May 2011 Accepted 9 May 2011 JEL classification: I21 Keywords: School choice Charter schools Student achievement a b s t r a c t Since their inception, charter schools have been a lighting rod for controversy, with much of the debate revolving around their effectiveness in improving student achievement. Previous research has shown mixed results for student achievement; this could be the consequence of different policy environments or varying methodological approaches with differing assumptions across studies. In our analysis, we discuss these approaches and their assumptions and estimate charter school achievement effects using a consistent method- ology across seven locations. © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1. Introduction Over the past decade and a half, charter schools have been among the fastest-growing segments of the K–12 education market. Nationally, more than 5000 charter schools have been established, serving more than 1.5 mil- lion students. 4 They have spurred a contentious debate since their establishment. Supporters argue that charter schools can improve student achievement and attain- ment, serve as laboratories for innovation, provide choice ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 615 322 0722. E-mail addresses: ron.zimmer@vanderbilt.edu (R. Zimmer), bgill@mathematica-mpr.com (B. Gill), KBooker@Mathematica-Mpr.com (K. Booker), lavertu.1@osu.edu (S. Lavertu), witte@lafollette.wisc.edu (J. Witte). 1 Tel.: +1 617 301 8962. 2 Tel.: +1 202 484 4838. 3 Tel.: +1 608 262 5715. 4 Center for Education Reform http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm? fuseAction=document&documentID=1964. to families that have few options, and promote healthy competition with traditional public schools (TPSs). Crit- ics worry that charter schools perform no better than TPSs, that they may exacerbate stratification by race and ability, and that they skim financial resources and motivated families from the students who remain in TPSs. Studies of charter school achievement effects have proliferated in recent years (Abdulkadiroglu et al., 2009; Bettinger, 2005; Betts, Tang, & Zau, 2006; Bifulco & Ladd, 2006; Booker, Gilpatric, Gronberg, & Jansen, 2007; Buddin & Zimmer, 2005; CREDO, 2009; Davis & Raymond, 2012; Gleason, Clark, Tuttle, & Dwoyer, 2010; Gronberg & Jansen, 2001; Hanushek, Kain, Rivkin, & Branch, 2005; Hoxby, Murarka, & Kang, 2009; Hoxby & Rockoff, 2004; Imberman, 2011; Sass, 2006; Witte, Weimer, Shober, & Schlomer, 2007; Zimmer et al., 2003; Zimmer & Buddin, 2006). In general, this research has led to mixed results. Some have argued that the mixed results are because of the vary- ing research designs, while others have suggested that the inconsistent findings could simply be the result of 0272-7757/$ – see front matter © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.05.005