A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
March 28, 2007, Volume 1, Number 31
Contents
Lessons of Charter School Sponsorship
Lessons of Charter School Sponsorship
The Sponsor?s Dilemma Are You a Cop or a Social Worker?
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have generously supported Fordham’s charter school sponsorship efforts in Ohio. In doing so, the Gates Foundation requested that we share some of our experiences and the knowledge gained monitoring nine charter schools. Below is the first installment in a series of articles examining lessons learned about quality sponsorship.
The March 2, 2007 Columbus Dispatch headline read, “Sponsor to run charter schools.” It sent shivers down my spine. Sponsors (a.k.a. authorizers), of which the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation is one, are the organizations that “license” charter schools to operate and ultimately hold them responsible for their results. Charter schools are, by intention and design, supposed to be free of many regulations and rules that burden traditional public schools. In return for these essential freedoms, however, charters are to be held accountable for their academic, fiscal and operational results. That’s the sponsor’s most solemn responsibility. Indeed, for the charter-school theory to work in practice, sponsors must hold “their” schools accountable for results.
Sponsors are not “operators,” however. Leading and managing a charter school, selecting its teachers and curriculum, dealing with its students and parents, managing its finances, making it succeed academically--these are the most solemn responsibilities of the non-profit governing boards that get “licensed” by sponsors. Sometimes those organizations “outsource” school operations to other groups, non-profit or for-profit, but they remain responsible for the school’s success. Responsible to the parents and communities, of course, but officially responsible to their sponsor.
It follows that one of the great dilemmas faced by conscientious sponsors is the tension between “tough” and “love,” between the work of a policeman and that of a social worker. To what extent does the sponsor settle for monitoring the charter school’s success, and to what extent does it try to provide help to school operators to boost the chances of success? This is a bigger dilemma than most people realize. Sponsors in Ohio, in addition to being responsible on behalf of the state for ensuring that “their” charter schools comply with myriad laws and regulations, are also required by state law to provide those schools with “technical assistance.” Ohio law does not define technical assistance or say how much or what types of it to provide, yet sponsors are held accountable by the state for delivering it.
We at Fordham, in our role as a sponsor, have sought to deal with this uncertainty by clarifying in our contracts and in our communications with the state, with schools, and with other interested parties what we do as a sponsor and what we do not do as it relates to school operations. In applying to the Ohio Department of Education for approval as a sponsor, we wrote that, in our view, “charter school sponsors are not expected to be a ‘mini-school district,’ but rather a technical resource, referral service and clearinghouse that matches schools’ needs with resources that can meet them.” We continued, “It is important to note that Fordham does not believe it is appropriate for a sponsor to also be the vendor of additional fee-based services, so we are keeping the role of sponsor separate from that of supplemental service provider.”
Here’s our reasoning: It’s undesirable for a sponsor to provide (much less sell!) academic, financial, and organizational services to schools, and then hold them accountable for their performance, which has presumably been driven in part by those services. That’s an inherent conflict of interest. Furthermore, a school might find itself unable to complain about the quality of the technical assistance provided by the sponsor for fear that such complaints might jeopardize the school’s standing with the sponsor.
In our contracts with the nine schools we sponsor, we include a section that reads: “The Sponsor will not require the Governing Authority and/or Community School to purchase, contract to purchase or use any supplemental services (treasury services, financial management services, etc.) offered by the Sponsor or any affiliate of the sponsor.” We seek to make clear to one and all that sponsors are responsible for overseeing charter schools; reporting on their academic, operational and fiscal performance; and ultimately deciding if they have earned the right to stay open. It’s not right for the sponsor to play “social worker” for a troubled school if it must, at day’s end, be the policeman who blows the whistle on that school.
Fordham’s view of sponsorship is supported by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), which declares that “authorizers (sponsors) are entities charged by law to approve new schools; oversee ongoing performance; and evaluate the performance of public charter schools to make renewal decisions. These three main tasks of an authorizer together provide a powerful tool for improving student outcomes” (see here). Nowhere does NACSA encourage sponsors also to sell supplemental services to schools, much less to “take over” ailing schools.
Yet some Ohio charter sponsors do sell supplemental services to their schools. These range from financial management to special education to professional development for teachers. For example, the sponsor embroiled in the recent Harte-Crossroads charter controversy (see here) apparently has an attachment in its school contracts requiring its sponsored schools also to purchase financial management services from the sponsor in return for 20 percent of the schools’ gross revenues. This sort of provision blurs the boundary between sponsor and school operator, while creating the potential for serious conflicts of interest. If the school goes bankrupt, who is liable? The school’s operator? The sponsor who was paid to manage its finances? If the sponsor sells shoddy services, can the school really complain or pick a different vendor?
Quality sponsors should stay free of such conflicts of interest, and focus squarely on ensuring whether charters are delivering results or not. Yet three real pressures encourage the blurring of sponsorship and school operations.
Ohio could strengthen its charter-school program by doing two things. First, the legislature should specify what “technical assistance” is and is not. Second, sponsors should be prohibited from selling supplemental services to the schools they sponsor. Organizations that currently sponsor schools, while also selling them supplemental services, should decide whether they want to be vendors or overseers. Wearing both hats creates more problems than it solves, and forcing organizations to do one or the other could also create new partnerships between sponsors and competent third party service providers. This separation of responsibilities would ultimately make for stronger, not weaker, schools.
by Terry Ryan
Editorial
Modest Proposals, Greater Possibilities
Governor Strickland’s budget (introduced as House Bill 119) may not offer any carrots to supporters of school choice in Ohio (see here), but his proposals to expand access to pre-kindergarten options for low-income children deserve some serious attention. They could also benefit from a little more imaginative thought.
In his State of the State speech, Governor Strickland declared, “We must recognize the facts: we have a readiness gap that leads to an achievement gap that results in an outcome gap.” His words are borne out by an abundance of national and state academic achievement data. A recent report from the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) ranked Ohio 20th (out of 38 states with state-supported initiatives) for access to preschool programs for three-year-olds, and 33rd for access to programs for four-year-olds (see here). Consider that just one percent of Ohio’s three-year-olds were enrolled in a state-funded preschool program in 2006, and only four percent of four-year-olds (together that amounts to just 8,100 children).
House Bill 119 includes several proposals to expand parent access to quality pre-kindergarten opportunities for their children. Particularly praise-worthy are the governor’s efforts to make the state’s Early Learning Initiative (ELI) more user-friendly for low-income parents. Launched in July 2005, ELI uses federal funds from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to subsidize quality child care and preschool programs for low-income children. All ELI providers are required to adhere to Ohio’s early learning teaching standards; increased monitoring and data-collecting are also part of the program.
Yet certain provisions make it hard for parents to keep their children enrolled in ELI. A six-month review, whereby parents’ eligibility is re-determined, poses considerable difficulties for otherwise qualifying families. For one, these reviews don’t follow a predictable schedule. Rather they are based on the date of children’s initial enrollment--and thus are in no way connected to sensible benchmarks in an educational program (such as the beginning or end of a school year). In addition, notices of upcoming reviews are sent by mail, a problem for low-income parents who often change residences during the year. And incomplete or out-of-date paperwork, or the loss of a job, can result in youngsters being dropped from the program.
To ensure greater access to the program, Governor Strickland seeks to align the eligibility requirements for parents and guardians at 200 percent of the federal poverty level (roughly $26,000 per year or less for two working parents). Doing so would make 2,000 more children eligible for ELI. To sustain enrollment in ELI, the governor would jettison the six-month review and eliminate the work requirement for parents whose children participate. The result would be a more streamlined and reliable program for families and pre-kindergarten providers.
Unfortunately, Governor Strickland’s efforts to guarantee or raise the quality of ELI and its providers are not as far-reaching as they could be. In part, that’s because quality is still largely determined by inputs: teaching degrees and credentials, additional funding, and expanded professional development or training opportunities. And while a couple of Strickland’s proposals have merit--such as raising the basic education requirements of teachers, there is little mention of determining providers’ effectiveness at teaching children critical cognitive, pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills. (Some data is being collected about ELI providers, but an outcomes-based accountability framework has been slow in developing.)
Now to the imagination piece. Maximizing pre-kindergarten access in Ohio is critical considering that an estimated 43,000 youngsters arrive ill-equipped to succeed in kindergarten classes each year (see here). While ELI may be a lifeline for some of the state’s neediest children, it does not constitute a comprehensive pre-kindergarten program. As we’ve noted before (see here), experience from Florida offers important lessons for Ohio in its effort to create voluntary pre-K options for parents here. The Sunshine State spends almost $2,600 per-child for half-day preschool (during the regular school year)--for any parent who wants it. As a result, almost half (47 percent--over 105,000 preschoolers total) of its four-year-olds are enrolled in preschools run by a variety of providers--school districts, private providers, religious schools, etc. In short, parents decide where to send their child, while the state pays the cost and ensures provider quality.
Ohio’s budget is stretched tightly as it is, and universal pre-kindergarten is likely nowhere on the horizon. But a relatively modest investment aimed at lower- to middle-income families could ably assist parents struggling to afford a quality preschool education for their children. Simply rerouting the $22 million earmarked for district preschool programs to half-day funding (at around $3,000 per-child, considering lower student-to-teacher ratios and the like) for preschools of all kinds could give 7,300 more children access to early years education. (Under HB119’s district funding scheme, that number would be just 2,500.) Allocating another $15 million could swell that figure to over 12,000 pre-kindergarten slots. Add those ELI-enrolled youngsters, and Ohio might finally make a dent in that dismal figure of 43,000 ill-prepared kindergartners. And it would do so without having to create a new framework of public providers or another state-level bureaucracy, instead utilizing a well-established network of preschool providers already operating in Ohio under state standards. Call the program a means-tested preschool initiative, call it an income-based tuition allotment--just don’t call it a voucher. Either way, parents earning up to say, 300 or 350 percent of the federal poverty level and ineligible for ELI, would gain access to qualified preschool providers for their children. Families requiring full-day programs could more readily make up the difference themselves.
To ensure quality, kindergarten readiness data could be traced back to individual providers (again, as Florida is doing) by employing Ohio’s much improved K-12 data system that assigns each student a unique, secure identifying number. Poor-performing providers would be prevented from receiving state funding. Additionally, the state would be able to support quality providers and strengthen its early learning standards based on comprehensive student data. Additional funding for the program, over time, might come via tax dollars saved on student interventions, remediation, and even special education.
Strickland’s modest proposals to expand access to state-funding preschool programs should be supported. Yet bolder and more imaginative thinking will be needed to ensure that all of the state’s preschoolers have a shot at being ready to succeed in kindergarten and beyond.
by Quentin Suffren
Capital Matters
Going in Reverse
When it comes to reforming and improving Ohio’s education system, there is more than enough drama in Columbus--as well as a fair share of proposals aimed at moving our education system backward. Two bills, in particular, are prime examples of the latter.
Representative Wolpert’s Condition
House Bill 27, sponsored by Representative Larry Wolpert (R-Hilliard), proposes changing Ohio’s method of determining district/school performance ratings by reducing the penalty for failing to meet “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) for more than two consecutive years. Thus districts meeting the needs of the majority of children could continue to fail subpopulations of students--such as economically disadvantaged children--without significantly impacting their state academic rating. In the case of Hilliard City School District (Rep. Wolpert’s district), 58.2 percent of African American children are performing at or above the AYP proficiency goal in math, while 87.1 percent of white students have met this goal. Under the current rating system, this district can be rated no higher than “Continuous Improvement” until they improve the performance of their African American students--and other subgroups as well. Yet Rep. Wolpert’s proposal would allow them to be rated “Excellent-Conditional” (our italics). Thus, a district could still boast a high rating despite its failure to meet the educational needs of all students. This might be a swell proposition for superintendents, principals, and even realtors in the area, but it would do a monumental disservice to low-income and minority students. (It may also put the state in conflict with the federal No Child Left Behind act.) Let’s hope that lawmakers give Rep. Wolpert’s “condition” the un-conditional rejection it deserves.
Give the Kids a Break
What is Senator Randy Gardner’s (R-Bowling Green) solution to the state’s education challenges? More time off from school. Senate Bill 89 would prohibit school districts and charter schools from starting their school year before Labor Day. According to Sen. Gardner, the proposal would promote economic activity in the travel and tourism industry. This comes in spite of efforts by district and community schools throughout the Ohio and across the nation (see here) to extend the school day and year to gain more learning time (e.g., the Dayton Public School District, which plans to start its 2007-08 school year on August 6th). Gadfly has no doubt that the bill will be a hit with schoolchildren and perhaps the owners of Kings Island. Yet folks interested in improving students’ academic achievement will need to look elsewhere.
by Kristina Phillips-Schwartz, Quentin Suffren
Recommended Reading
Wolves Crying ?Wolf?
Angry at recent announcements heralding $39 million in district budget cuts, the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers (CFT) is fighting back. CFT launched an advertising campaign against the board of the Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS), alleging gross mishandling of the district’s budget by board members. “We believe there are serious questions that need to be raised about the competence of the majority of the school board members to handle the current budget crisis,” said Sue Taylor, CFT’s president (and now president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers). Taylor acknowledges the cuts stem, in part, from falling enrollment numbers, but she argues potential layoffs of teachers and staff would harm the district’s ability to “meet the educational needs of [its] students.” Board members see the union’s ad campaign another way. CFT is currently in contract negotiations with CPS board members. Board president Eileen Cooper noted, “That’s the way negotiations are sometimes played.” Gadfly is certainly no apologist for CPS’s fiscal decisions, but it’s hard to take union members’ plaints seriously. According to their current collective bargaining agreement (see here), CPS teachers are required to work just 6.5 hours a day, 183 days a year; get 8 paid holidays, 3 personal days, and 11 sick days; and pay as little as $9 per-month for family health care insurance (see here). Surely, none of this figures into the current budget crisis--pshaw. CFT may want to dismantle its campaign before too many taxpayers grow tired of wolves crying “wolf.”
“Teacher Union Ad Criticizes CPS Board,” by Cindy Kranz, The Cincinnati Enquirer, March 22, 2007.
Recommended Viewing
Charter School Truth-Telling
With so much rhetoric (some of it misleading, and much of it espoused by the state’s teacher unions) surrounding Ohio’s charter school program, it’s easy to overlook key elements of both the program and the 300+ schools that comprise it. Not to mention the profound and positive impact many are having on the reform efforts of traditional school districts, particularly those in urban areas. Editorials in both the Dayton Daily News (see here) and Columbus Dispatch (see here) have justly noted the latter--as well as the expanded opportunities parents have to select schools and programs that best fit the needs of their children. But to help parents, lawmakers and taxpayers further separate fact from fiction about charter schools, we’ve put together “Essential Facts about Ohio’s Charter School Program.” This brief, informative presentation gets to the bottom of Ohio’s charter school program--and, unlike much that is being said about charters, not by scraping it.
Announcements
Calling All Charter School Board Members
Overseeing the academic, fiscal and operational components of a charter school is a significant responsibility for individuals who serve as governing authority members. To assist them in their efforts, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, the Ohio Department of Education, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, and the Educational Service Center of Franklin County are hosting "Charter School Board Governance 101," to be held Friday, May 4, 2007 in Columbus.
Experts will offer governing board members critical information about their roles and responsibilities related to charter school law, Ohio's academic accountability system and compliance issues related to special education. This event is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Attendance is free, but registration is required no later than April 27, 2007. Complete details can be found here--and a registration form is available here.