Ohio Gadfly has a weakness for all manner of epicurean delights. Look for him (but don't swat him) at Thanksgiving feasts around the state--just not in your inbox. He'll be back with more education news and analysis on November 29.

Contents
Editorial

• Creating New Leaders in the Charter Sector

Investigative Analysis

• School Buildings in Need of Children (and Vice Versa)

Reviews and Analysis

• School Restructuring Under No Child Left Behind: What Works When?
• Reclaiming the American Dream

Announcements

• Making the Grade (or Not)
• KIPP Columbus Seeks Founding Cluster Executive Director

Editorial
Creating New Leaders in the Charter Sector
The charter community in the Buckeye State recently received some welcome news (see here and here ). After costly, long-drawn-out litigation, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the teacher unions' multiple challenges to the constitutionality of the state's charter school program in a sweeping and powerful opinion. The ruling clears the way for some long-overdue changes to Ohio's charter school policies, many of which we've spelled out in a report (see here) requested by the governor, key legislators, and state education leaders.

Yet what is more difficult to tackle--and impossible to legislate--is the issue of leadership in the K-12 education field itself, particularly in the charter sector.

All kinds of charter schools are beset by leadership problems, four of which are ubiquitous enough to mention here. First, the paucity of training systems and career paths. Like explorers in the wilderness, charters are still cutting new paths through the scrub, and nowhere more than in regard to personnel. Where does one learn to become a successful charter-school leader? Where does one study? Apprentice? Find a mentor?

Second, American public education, for reasons that are understandable yet lamentable, has not cultivated many entrepreneurial people in its ranks. It's fair to say that the more entrepreneurial their temperament and aspirations, the less likely they are to enter or remain in public education. Entrepreneurs simply do not thrive in so heavily regulated and standardized an environment. So when entrepreneurial opportunities arise, as in the charter sector, there's not much bench strength, not a lot of minor league teams from which players can be brought into the majors.

Third, governance problems that cause and exacerbate leadership problems. I'm referring to transient, casual, disengaged charter school board members on the one hand, and tyrannical, bullying, meddlesome board members on the other. To management organizations that sometimes think they can parachute a person into unfamiliar territory and have him/her lead a successful school. To the tendency in some charter schools for the whole curriculum and instructional strategy to exist in a single person's head, such that when he/she leaves, the curriculum does, too. And I'm talking about burnout and transition problems, where a school's workaholic founder poops out or gets ill and there's nobody obvious in line to take over.  

Fourth are externalities that make charter school leadership so onerous, and sometimes so painful, that good people don't want to do it for long, if at all. I'm talking about political pushback, community hostility, bad publicity, regulatory creep and, especially in the NCLB era, accountability demands that aren't always compatible with the education vision, spirit or human needs that catalyzed the charter school in the first place.

What I've been describing are systemic or structural problems. Now I venture into more sensitive, self-critical territory with a trio of leadership problems inside the charter sector itself. They're not widespread, but it doesn't take much of this sort of thing to tarnish the charter movement as a whole. I'm talking about well-meaning incompetence, profiteering, and the placing of adult interests ahead of children's.

Well-meaning incompetence. I've seen too many charter schools where the people in charge are lovely, caring, honorable individuals who want the best for kids and earnestly believe that they can run a school that will benefit kids, but who cannot parse good curriculum and instruction from bad, who neglect or fail to analyze key student achievement data, and who may also be inept business managers. These folks often run schools that parents like because they're welcoming and safe. But all too often these are schools in which very little learning occurs.

Profiteering. To be blunt, I've met a few too many people who are into charter schools to get rich. They do this in various ways, not just direct salary, but by, for example, owning the building that the school leases, employing multiple family members, or selling expensive, wraparound daycare services and suchlike. Sometimes they own the EMO that operates their school--and many other schools.

Placing adult interests ahead of the kids. Besides financial greed, adult interests may include vanity, ego, ethnic solidarity, a job for one's cousin or spouse, a contract for one's in-laws, political ambition, and so on. A frequent complaint about public education is that it tends to place the interests of adults ahead of those of children. Today, we can see this happening in some charter schools as well.

We must take these challenges seriously. A vibrant and healthy charter-school program cannot get away with good intentions and lofty goals; it has to deliver results. In the NCLB era, a serious education reform can no longer make it by invoking its innovativeness or its experimental nature. It has to produce academic achievement. It has to close gaps. It has to replicate success. It has to root out failure. And particularly in the face of all the political enemies that it faces, it has to remain above reproach, ethically sound--and self-policing when there are transgressions.

In Ohio, we're not there yet. There's too much well-meaning mediocrity. There aren't nearly enough academically strong charter schools. Few of the good ones are replicating. Few of the bad ones are being closed or non-renewed. And there's too much adult interest-serving.

So, how best to tackle these challenges? There's no single, simple solution. I'm going to outline five ideas that at least point toward partial solutions.

1. We need to create some human capital development organizations or networks in the education field, not just for charter schools but for all manner of entrepreneurial organizations and activities in the K-12 domain. I'm picturing a combination of recruitment and placement services with networking opportunities, career development pipelines and support groups.
2. Develop some university-based programs for training charter leaders and other entrepreneurs for this sector. Such programs will more likely be found in business schools than education schools, and that's probably as it should be.
3. Off-campus we need more by way of internships and mentorships for leaders and future leaders. I'm talking development of leaders along the lines of what KIPP, for example, does to prepare its next generation of school heads--by having them spend a summer in a university-based program, then half a year as interns and apprentices in successful KIPP schools, before going off to start their own schools.
4. This field cries for more expert consultants (including personnel headhunters) to help schools and other education organizations find and deploy the talent they need, diagnose their organizational needs, tailor their structures and solve their problems.
5. Since the education profession today doesn't have enough of the sorts of entrepreneurs that we need, while we're developing more of them within the field, let's also engage in more vigorous recruitment of entrepreneurs from other sectors.

It's been nearly ten years since Ohio began chartering--15 since the first charter school opened in Minnesota. The state's high court has signaled that the program is here to stay, and the opportunity to capitalize on the potential offered by the state's charters is clear. Yet without creative and sustainable leadership, charter schools' success will continue to be hamstrung by poor management and doddering incompetence--however well-intentioned. We can and should continue to debate whether school and sponsor standards are sufficient and whether cumbersome regulations are adequately rolled back. But no argument is necessary with regards to developing and supporting capable school leaders. There aren't enough of them today. We need to make sure that we have plenty more tomorrow.

This editorial is adapted from a keynote address delivered on October 27, 2006 at the annual conference of the Colorado League of Charter Schools.

by Chester E. Finn, Jr.

Investigative Analysis
School Buildings in Need of Children (and Vice Versa)
It's no secret that Ohio's school funding system is deeply troubled (see here and here). But when it comes to ensuring its youngsters attend gleaming new district schools, Ohio is delivering. The state has dedicated almost $5 billion toward facilities construction since 1997--not counting local contributions from levy and bond issues. By the end of 2005, the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC), which oversees and disburses state funds for school facilities projects, had completed 411 buildings across the state, and well over 250 more projects are in design or currently under construction (see here).

There is good reason to be sanguine about such a flurry of activity. Beyond signaling an investment in future generations, new school construction or renovation--when coupled with a good instructional program--can pay dividends for student learning by providing suitable learning environments, deterring absenteeism, and keeping good teachers in classrooms (see here).
Yet too many students in Ohio's urban areas are not reaping the benefits of the state's ambitious school construction project.

Part of the problem stems from steep declines in enrollment in many urban districts as more and more students leave troubled district schools to attend charter schools or families relocate to homes in suburban districts. From 1997 to 2006, the five major urban districts (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Toledo) lost over 52,000 students. Of the five districts, Cleveland lost 16,630 students over the nine year span, Cincinnati lost almost 11,000, and Dayton shed just under 10,000.

As a result, many districts have turned to new school construction as a strategy for drawing students back to their classrooms--so far, with mixed results. In Columbus, two new district elementary schools are drawing more students (see here) despite their ratings of Academic Watch, the equivalent of a "D." Yet in Cleveland only two of the district's seven new schools have reached capacity (see here). Cincinnati Public Schools will announce its revamped building plans in the face of grim student enrollment projections. And in Springfield, school board members recently discussed closing one of their brand new schools due to poor enrollment figures (see here).

At the same time, the 72,000-plus students now attending Ohio's charter schools get no benefit from the OSFC's efforts. State law prohibits charters from accessing facility dollars and as a result, they often operate in strip malls, converted church facilities, and even modular or portable buildings. While many state officials have strongly urged traditional districts to lease extra space to charter schools at market-rate, this is rarely the case. Thus, as urban districts race to complete more new schools, surplus school buildings lie fallow and even some new ones have too few students to fill them.

Such idle space is not only a waste of taxpayer dollars--often gleaned from hard-won levy or bond campaigns--but also a clear indicator of the strained relations between districts and charter schools. Yet while charters and districts may always compete for students (all the better, since competition can spur much-needed reform in both), they shouldn't, and indeed do not have to, compete for suitable school facilities.

So how do districts and charters find common ground where all students can benefit from new or renovated facilities? One answer is to provide incentives for districts and charters to partner. For instance, in exchange for leasing suitable facilities to charters at minimal rates, districts might be allowed to count charter students when applying for facility allotments (calculated on the basis of student enrollment), or even include charter students' test scores with those of the district. And charters should be provided incentives--perhaps the promise of cheap facilities or even new district school buildings--to strive for success beyond just enrolling students. Together, such incentives could encourage beneficial partnerships between districts and charters and refocus both state and local facilities projects on the important task at hand: providing suitable learning environments for all of Ohio's children.

by Quentin Suffren

Reviews and Analysis
School Restructuring Under No Child Left Behind: What Works When?
Organizational restructuring is common practice for many private businesses, but few in public education have tried it (one exception can be found in Dayton--see here). That may soon change. The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandates restructuring for schools failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for five years in a row. (AYP requires that all student subgroups--economically disadvantaged, ethnic/minority, special education, etc.--also meet proficiency levels set by the state.)

So how to go about it? School Restructuring Under No Child Left Behind: What Works When? describes the available options. Under NCLB, school restructuring can take five forms: a turnaround, whereby the principal, the curriculum, and some staff are replaced in hopes of better results; chartering and contracting, whereby districts can outsource school operations to an outside entity; a state takeover, whereby the district turns a troubled school over to the state; and "other," which encompasses all remaining restructuring arrangements aimed at fundamental reforms.

What Works When? offers a step-by-step guide to each restructuring option (or at least the first four, as "other" remains a challenge simply to define)--complete with worksheets, checklists, and decision trees. Turnarounds are often the easiest route for many districts, provided a change-minded principal is available. Both chartering and contracting (depending on state charter laws) offer the benefits of using educational management organizations with track records of raising student achievement quickly.

Central to any restructuring efforts, regardless of the chosen route, is competent leadership. Reform leaders--whether found within districts or brought in from the outside--must be identified and engaged early in the restructuring process. To help, the guide provides tools to identify change-minded leaders. Yet, looking at the qualifications, many states could be in short supply. 
Ohio can waste little time searching for its cadre of reformers. Last year, 9 percent of schools rated "Excellent," 35 percent of "Effective" schools, and 69 percent of schools rated in "Continuous Improvement" by the state--over 1400 schools total--missed federal AYP goals. And as AYP targets continue to rise and become more difficult to meet, large numbers of school districts will be forced to consider school restructuring.

For districts across the state, indeed the country, this means sailing in uncharted seas. While What Works When? can't promise stakeholders safe passage, it may at least offer a lodestar for mapping the waters of serious school reform.

Download a copy of the report here.

by Jack Grubb

Reclaiming the American Dream
Few can argue that college completion rates are depressingly low. Just 35 percent of the 4.1 million students entering high school will go on to earn a college degree. Luckily, pursuing a rigorous academic curriculum in high school (as set forth in Governor Taft's Ohio Core plan) greatly increases the likelihood high school students will obtain a college degree.

Yet it still may not be enough for low-income children. While over 60 percent of academically prepared higher-income students finish college, just 20 percent of similarly prepared low-income earn a bachelor's degree. And those that graduate do so at less selective colleges with less support and fewer prospects for academic success.

The Bridgespan Group's new report examines key factors that, when coupled with rigorous academic preparation, improve low-income students' prospects for finishing college. First among them is a student's expectation that he or she must attend college to pursue a planned career. Consider that low-income students who make the connection between college and career goals are six times more likely to finish college than those who don't. Other important factors are student peer cultures and knowledge of college requirements, including long-term financial commitments.

Sadly, college access supports, especially those supporting academic preparedness, are not widespread among low-income youth. While 52 percent of surveyed low-income eighth-graders expected to go to college, only 23 percent intended to pursue a college-prep curriculum in high school.

In addition to adopting and implementing a college-ready curriculum, recommendations for schools include creating a "college-going" culture--akin to what many KIPP schools do (see here and here)--and providing the infrastructure to aid students' transition to a college-ready curriculum. 
Ohio looks set to bolster its high school curriculum requirements with passage of the Ohio Core. School leaders and educators must supply the key supports low-income students need to meet them.

To read the report, click here.

by Jane Schreier Jones

Announcements
Making the Grade (or Not)
Too many of America's youngsters--Ohioans among them--are still being left behind. So says The Fordham Report: How Well Are States Educating Our Neediest Children?, which evaluates state education efforts in three major categories: student achievement for low-income, African American, and Hispanic students; achievement trends for these same groups over the last 10-15 years; and the state's track record in bold education reform. Ohio's record is decidedly mixed. While the Buckeye State received high marks for its improved state testing program and school choice programs, Ohio falls short (earning a "D") in minority and low-income student achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Access the full report, complete with Ohio's evaluation, here.

KIPP Columbus Seeks Founding Cluster Executive Director
Passionate about increasing excellent schooling options for all children? Here's a chance to work with one of the leading charter school networks in the nation. The KIPP Foundation is seeking an accomplished leader to create a cluster of KIPP schools in Columbus, Ohio. The Founding Cluster Executive Director will be responsible for the execution of KIPP's strategic plan, which includes ensuring the start-up and successful growth of a cluster of at least five schools serving approximately 1500 students in grades K-12. See here for a full description of this opportunity.