A Bi-Weekly Bulletin of News and
Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
November 16, 2005, Volume 1, Number 2
Contents
Editorial
Recommended Reading
Reviews and Analysis
Announcements
Errata
Editorial
Excellence in Ohio Charter Schools
How do we foster excellence in Ohio charter schools? That's the key question facing some 250 panelists and participants in the forthcoming "summit," Excellence in Ohio Charter Schools: What it will take and how to get there. The meeting is set for November 17 in Columbus and will be hosted by the governor, senate president, house speaker, and state superintendent. (The event is funded by the Gates, Walton, and Fordham foundations.)
Why a summit on charter school excellence? Why now? Since the first Ohio charter school opened its doors in 1998, rapid growth in school numbers and ceaseless pushback from their opponents has defined the charter movement in the Buckeye State. Charter proponents' first goal was to open lots of schools in lots of places so as to gain a foothold for this promising education reform and to create options for as many kids as possible, while the opportunity lasted. Quality and performance mattered, but what mattered more was getting schools up and running.
Now it's time to focus laser-like on quality. The urgency is underscored by recent changes to Ohio's charter law and the recent release by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools of "Renewing the Compact: A statement by the Task Force on Charter School Quality and Accountability." These are important principles—starting with the blunt assertion that school quality is the top priority—to apply to charter schools in Ohio as well as in other states.
The summit will highlight the Buckeye State's need to rededicate its charter school program to quality performance and student achievement. Its purpose is to forge a new agenda for Ohio's charter schools shared by operators, sponsors, funders, and policymakers.
The conference line-up includes a veritable "who's who" of respected leaders from the Ohio and national charter movements. What can we expect to learn from them? Here are five themes to look and listen for:
First, Ohio already has some superb charter schools. These include K-8 academic programs that are closing the black-white achievement gap in some of Ohio's toughest neighborhoods, and drop-out recovery schools that are working hard to bring young people back into the education mainstream. Some of these schools are solo operations led by earnest, incredibly hard-working educators and community leaders, while others are run by national operators such as Edison, National Heritage Academies, and the on-line provider K-12.
Second, the future belongs to quality charter operators who can consistently deliver academic achievement. Evidence abounds. Ohio's governor signed HB 66 on June 20, 2005, creating new pressure on charter schools to either perform or close. Additionally, a number of quality charter operators in Ohio and other states are starting to replicate their successes on additional sites. The best-known examples are the nationally recognized KIPP schools, and homegrown models such as the WEB DuBois schools in Cincinnati, the Richard Allen Academies in Dayton, and the Horizon Science Academies and Citizens Academies in Cleveland. These efforts are being supported and nurtured by national foundations and local funders dedicated to creating more high-quality school options for all children.
Third, sponsorship matters greatly. Sponsors are those entities that, on the state's behalf, "license" charter schools to operate. They are crucial for monitoring, guiding, and supporting schools, while simultaneously holding them accountable for academic performance, organizational viability, and financial stewardship. The experiences of high-quality, successful sponsors in Michigan, Indiana, Massachusetts, Washington D.C., and New York have taught us much in recent years.
Fourth, traditional school districts can learn from charters and benefit by emulating them. Charter schools are an asset to reform-minded school districts. School systems such as those in Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City are now employing a "tight-loose" model of school governance, empowering individual schools to manage themselves while holding them to account for their academic performance. The superintendents in districts that adopt this model tend to act less like bureaucratic overseers and more like direction setters.
Finally, Democrats also support charters. Not all of them, to be sure, but it may surprise people in polarized states such as Ohio that some Democratic leaders not only support charter schools, but embrace them as a promising education reform strategy. Mayor Bart Peterson of Indianapolis, for example, sponsors charter schools in his city. Chicago's Richard Daley is a strong supporter of charters, too, and the Windy City is at the forefront of the national charter movement. Many Democrats in Congress and in statehouses across this land also support and encourage this reform movement. In fact, some observers judge that the Clinton Administration was friendlier to this innovation than the current Bush Administration.
This is a pivotal time for Ohio charter schools. They have to produce academic achievement, with no excuses accepted. There are plenty of positive lessons to learn from and encouraging examples to model. Now we must bring these lessons and examples to scale so that quality charter schools become the norm rather than the exception. The charter future has arrived. Let's make the most of it.
To see the conference agenda, click here.
by Terry Ryan
Recommended Reading
Frustrated Ohioans Shoot Down School Levies
The previous Ohio Gadfly raised an alarm about citizens' dissatisfaction with their public schools. As Halfway Out the Door reported, 59 percent of those surveyed don't think they are getting their money's worth out of public schools. So it should come as no shock that, of the 222 proposed school levies on the ballot November 8, barely half (57 percent) passed. Moreover, most of these were renewals, not new spending measures. Where levies did pass, the margins were usually tight. For example, in the Trotwood-Madison schools in Montgomery County, a $7.8 million levy passed by just 16 votes. In Springfield, voters rejected an emergency levy—the fourth such that citizens have voted down in two years. Now the district must cut $6 million from its budget. These defeats are especially interesting in light of the fact that public school performance has been improving in Ohio, and the state is ground zero for a number of significant reform initiatives. The lesson seems clear: politicians and school leaders need to do a better job of getting the word out about their varied and ongoing efforts to improve the state's schools.
"Faculty, students demoralized," Springfield News-Sun, November 10, 2005
"Halfway Out the Door," by Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, November 2005
"November 2005 Election Results," by Ohio Department of Education, November 9, 2005
"Ohioans Want Better Schools," by Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 12, 2005
Who's the Boss?
Several of Ohio's Big 8 cities elected new mayors last week, but none with more radical school reform ideas than Cincinnati's Mark Mallory. Last February, while serving as a state senator, Mallory proposed a plan to allow Cincinnati's mayor not only to appoint the city's superintendent, but also to name all the school board members. He was, in fact, attempting to make the mayor of Cincinnati that city's "education czar." Mayoral control of the schools is something that has met with mixed results in big cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, and Cleveland. Mallory rescinded his bill when the Cincinnati Public Schools stepped up to the challenge and reduced the district's drop-out rate and earned a state rating of Continuous Improvement. Early in his campaign for mayor, Mallory urged mayoral control of the district, and argued "under my plan, everyone in the city will know who to hold responsible for the success or failure of the schools." Late in the campaign, however, and now as mayor-elect, Mallory has distanced himself from the notion of a mayoral takeover of schools. But, it will be interesting to see if the mayor-elect sits quietly in Town Hall should the recent successes of the Cincinnati Public Schools prove fleeting.
"Mayoral hopefuls want to work with schools," Jennifer Mrozowski, Cincinnati Enquirer, November 2, 2005
"SB46 School District Control," State Senator Mark Mallory, February 3, 2005
"Mark Mallory for Cincinnati: On the Issues Focusing on Education."
Reviews and Analysis
Value-what?
There has been a lot of talk lately about value-added assessment in Ohio (including a high profile conference by Battelle for Kids last month). The day is nearing when the Buckeye State goes "value-added." A pilot run is set for next school year and full-scale implementation is set for 2007-08. Naturally, plenty of questions still surround this new assessment model and what it will mean for students, schools, and district accountability. In an effort to help shed light on this, Gadfly has decided to explore some of the most asked questions about value-added assessment.
What does value-added assessment really mean?
It's a method of analyzing individual student test scores over time. The statistics used in value-added assessment virtually eliminate non-school factors that affect student achievement, providing a reasonably accurate indication of how effective schools are at "adding value" to the academic performance of their students. It does not, however, focus on whether or not students have reached proficiency on state standards. Some schools may measure high on growth indicators but low on achievement indicators (say, a high school with lots of students who start out far behind but make great progress over time, yet still are not up to standards). Under No Child Left Behind, and Ohio's current accountability system, such schools are punished. One may wonder whether that's fair. (But one may also wonder whether it's fair to praise a school for adding value if its students are still not performing satisfactorily in relation to absolute standards.)
How will value-added assessment be factored into the state's accountability system?
It's supposed to supplement the state's current accountability system (which is aligned with the federal No Child Left Behind law), but the Ohio Accountability Task Force is still working to determine how best to accomplish this goal. The questions they are dealing with include such issues as how much growth is enough and how much progress is enough? How can we focus on growth while still ensuring that all children ultimately reach proficiency in reading and math standards by 2014 (which NCLB requires)? And, what does value-added assessment mean for accountability and charter schools, especially for schools that serve drop-outs? Will value-added measures be used to provide financial awards to schools and teachers, as is the case in some other states?
As this unfolds in the coming months, Gadfly will provide our readers with updates. In the meantime, if you'd like more information, check out these websites:
Judging Value Added: A better assessment of school performance starts with the recognition that the playing field isn't level
Battelle for Kids
Ohio Accountability Task Force
Amended Substitute House Bill 3
by Kristina Phillips-Schwartz
Parent and Student Voices on the First Year of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program
School vouchers, that hotly contested school reform strategy playing out in places as diverse as Milwaukee, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C., will soon appear statewide in Ohio. House Bill 66, signed by Governor Taft on June 30, 2005, will create one of the country's largest school voucher programs when it goes into effect next school year. The Ohio Education Choice Scholarship Program will offer up to 14,000 vouchers (ranging in value from $4,000 to $5,000) for students in persistently underperforming public (district and charter) schools as defined by the state's rating system. However, key questions about the plan are still being worked out: Will private schools agree to participate? Will they welcome voucher students with open arms? Who will notify parents in failing schools about the vouchers? And what sort of application process will parents need to go through? A recent report, Parent and Student Voices on the First Year of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, examined how some of these issues are playing out in the nation's capital, which has its own (federally funded) voucher program:
Given that D.C.'s program reached half as many students as Ohio's program targets, and that so many of Ohio's details are still up in the air, Buckeye education leaders and policy makers would be wise to look to D.C. and other cities (including Cleveland) with relevant experience for guidance on implementing vouchers. This is especially important as the program is to be up and running for children in August 2006. You can read this report here.
See also "Vouchers to expand school choice," by Jennifer Smith Richards, Columbus Dispatch, November 13, 2005
by Janet D'Souza
Driving More Money into the Classroom: The Promise of Shared Services
In Ohio, approximately 42 percent of school districts have student enrollments less than 1,500. (Most of the state's 250 plus charter schools are even smaller.) For these districts, meeting a reasonable target of spending 60 percent of their budgets on instruction and 40 percent on administration proves difficult, due to mounting costs for health insurance, fuel for buses, education specialists, and other non-instructional items. Large districts can defray costs by spreading them over several schools. Small districts don't have that luxury. A new report from Deloitte describes ways for small districts to set up partnerships that allow them to benefit from economies of scale resulting from sharing services such as accounting, building maintenance, and school nursing. If cost sharing is executed well, the report notes, districts can benefit from scale and still maintain control over important matters like curricula, professional development, and teacher hiring. This report should serve as bedside reading for school administrators (in small districts and charter schools) who face increasing costs and shrinking or static budgets. You can read it here.
Announcements
Updated charter school data now available on our website
We seek to make information about school choice more accessible. Toward that end, we now have an Excel spreadsheet that lists charter school information for Dayton, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. It contains the schools' contact information, latest student counts, financial data, and academic ratings. We plan to update it quarterly and eventually expand it to other cities in Ohio, but if you see information you know is incorrect, we welcome the feedback.
Charter school organization seeks help
The National Association of Charter School Authorizers is looking for talent. They are forming National Advisory Panels "to help shape our response to challenges facing the charter school authorizer profession." Additionally, NACSA is looking for a Chief Operating Officer. For a description of the position and directions on how to apply, please follow this link.
Errata
Correction
In the first issue of the Ohio Gadfly, we said that the Thomas B. Fordham Institute is a charter school sponsor; in fact, it's the Institute's organizational cousin, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, that's responsible for our efforts on that front.