A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
May 2, 2007, Volume 1, Number 33
Contents
Editorial
Editorial
A Bargain for the Dayton Public Schools
With the Dayton Public Schools (DPS) levy vote just a week away, there is still a fair amount of uncertainty surrounding its fate (despite ours and other organizations’ endorsements). Like Ohio’s other big urban school districts, DPS’s efforts are complicated by history. The district has suffered from heavy enrollment losses--yes, some due to charter schools, but more due to an overall decline in Dayton’s population. Couple these losses with a long shadow of poor academic performance (one that is happily receding), and deep skepticism from citizens about district efficiency, and the result is a make-or-break levy to cover a $24 million deficit in 2007-08, and even greater projected shortfalls in years to come.
Despite these challenges, the Dayton Public Schools, like other urban districts, has managed to accumulate a considerable surplus of wealth in one area: school facilities. Thanks to state and local contributions totaling over half a billion dollars, new school construction has taken off in the area, leaving a trail of empty school buildings in its wake, and making veritable land (or building) barons out of DPS. Almost two dozen are listed “in transition” or possibly lying fallow with limited or uncertain futures. This number is sure to climb as new construction is completed.
At a recent rally for school choice in Dayton, House Speaker Jon Husted was asked about his support for the upcoming DPS levy. In response, he noted the district’s surplus of facilities and offered his support for the upcoming levy on the condition that DPS agree to make available unused facilities (presumably, for lease or sale) to local charter schools. DPS board president Yvonne Isaacs has rejected such “bargaining” on principle, stating the levy deserves passage on its own. Yet rejecting the Speaker’s offer outright is overly hasty. For in his conditional offer exists an opportunity to show Daytonians that district leadership, in seeking more local support, is thinking about the well-being of the city’s children, instead of its own institutional interests. Not to mention it would mark some long overdue collaboration between the district and area charters.
On a more practical level, Speaker Husted’s bargain, in addition to potentially providing area charter students with upgraded facilities, directly serves the interests of the district. House Bill 276, signed last December by former Governor Taft, allows districts leasing facilities to charter schools to combine those charter students’ test scores with district students’ scores. Thus Dayton Public Schools, whose students were outperformed in reading and math in grades 4-8, could not only bring in precious revenue from new lease agreements or sales, but more easily secure their Continuous Improvement rating--or raise it--in future years.
To keep politics and old grudges out of the equation, DPS could even create a “Facilities Trust”--an independent nonprofit entity, perhaps in partnership with local civic and business leaders that would broker the sale or lease of unused property/buildings to qualified area charters (perhaps even using set criteria for academic and fiscal health). By engaging the expertise of business leaders, real estate brokers, and political officials, a Facilities Trust could serve all parties fairly and effectively (one model of such a trust exists in Portland, Oregon). And DPS officials and board members wouldn’t be distracted from their worthwhile and promising efforts to raise student achievement in the district.
By reaching out to charter schools, the Dayton Public Schools could gain Mr. Husted’s support for the May levy, greater administrative efficiency, improved test scores--and with them, the votes of 6,000+ charter school families in the Gem City.
A similar version of this editorial ran in the April 22nd edition of the Dayton Daily News.
by Quentin Suffren
Guest Editorial
BES Waiting to Invest in Ohio
Ohio’s children need more high quality educational options. We at Building Excellent Schools (BES) want the opportunity to work in Ohio, training leaders to found strong charter schools. This would seem a match made in heaven, right? Yet if Ohio Governor Ted Strickland had his way, the number of new Building Excellent Schools Fellow-founded schools, or other effective charter models for that matter, opening in Ohio in 2007 will be zero. In 2008, it will be zero. In fact, under the governor’s plan, a new charter school could not open until July 2009--regardless of its quality.
Fortunately, the Ohio House of Representatives has offered a reprieve from such drastic action with its version of the state budget bill. In place of a moratorium, it would increase penalties for low-performing schools (whether academically or fiscally) while still allowing high-performing models to open and/or replicate in the state. At Building Excellent Schools we wholeheartedly encourage any efforts to bring quality and accountability to charter schools and public education in general. One example of the former is Columbus Collegiate Academy, a Building Excellent Schools Fellow-Founded school seeking to open in 2008.
In August 2006, Andrew Boy (already an accomplished educator in Ohio) began a Building Excellent Schools Fellowship with a vision for opening Columbus Collegiate Academy, an urban middle school seeking to prepare students academically for the collegiate level and produce citizens of integrity. Mr. Boy came to the Fellowship as one of only 12 Fellows carefully selected from over 300 applicants. By joining the Fellowship, he signed on to participate in a rigorous training program which would thoroughly train him to design, found, and operate an urban charter school of uncompromising excellence.
A BES Fellowship year entails approximately 100 training days in Boston, an extended residency in a high performing urban charter school, and ongoing coaching and support for board and charter application development. The culmination of the Fellowship year is the submission of a well-written, thoroughly researched charter application that reflects the best practices in urban school design. Schools founded by Building Excellent Schools Fellows are each free-standing, locally controlled, and independent of any management organization.
During the 2006-2007 Fellowship year, Mr. Boy toured the top 30 performing urban charter schools in the northeast United States to evaluate/experience the process of researched best practices in action. He, with other Fellows, visited renowned high performing charter schools such as Academy of the Pacific Rim (MA), Amistad Academy (CT), Boston Collegiate (MA), KIPP Bronx (NY), North Star Academy (NJ), and Roxbury Prep (MA).
Mr. Boy completed his residency at Excel Academy (MA), a BES Fellow-founded urban charter middle school that serves an “at-risk” population (80+ percent Hispanic, 75+ percent Free and Reduced Price Lunch); features a strong school culture; encourages each of its students to thrive; and has 100 percent of its students passing state-mandated tests. The residency included substantial access to school leadership and hands-on experience managing the day-to-day operations of the school.
Since then, Andrew has worked diligently to secure accomplished board members for Columbus Collegiate Academy, research a suitable site for the school, and complete a rigorous application for school sponsorship by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. He is also in the process of raising over $250,000 in philanthropic dollars to plan and open Columbus Collegiate in the fall of 2008. Yet if the governor’s policy becomes law, this could be for naught--at least in Ohio. (Other states across the nation are clamoring for top-notch schools and school leaders.)
The legislative process is far from over, and we realize that compromises are sure to be brokered. Yet we hope policymakers will allow Columbus Collegiate and Mr. Boy the opportunity to educate some of the Capital City’s neediest youngsters for bright futures in top-notch high schools and universities. Building Excellent Schools, like several other effective charter school support organizations, is eager to bring strong public schools to Ohio students. As the debate over Ohio’s charters continues, we hope the governor and legislators will see the difference between political concession and good policy. In the meantime, at Building Excellent Schools we wait anxiously on the outside looking in, along with thousands of Ohio’s parents and families who desperately need high quality public school options.
by Chris Clemons and Andrew Boy
Chris Clemons is Deputy Executive Director of Building Excellent Schools. Andrew Boy is a BES Fellow and Lead Founder of Columbus Collegiate Academy.
Capital Matters
Can?t We All Just Get Along? (Apparently, yes.)
Comity in the House
In a rare show of admirable bi-partisanship and compromise, Ohio House members passed a $52 billion spending plan (Amend Sub. HB 119) with relative ease--even after several weeks of intense deliberation. (Not to mention hours of passionate testimony from parents, students and school leaders seeking to sway lawmakers on the issue of school choice.) Despite the initial gravel-banging scene at the bill’s first hearing, the House’s version sailed through the House Finance & Appropriations Committee Saturday night with a 31-0 vote, followed by a 97-0 vote on the House floor. The quick passage came as a shock to many who anticipated heated partisan bickering to dominate as the House deliberated on the first budget delivered by a Democratic Governor in nearly two decades. Major changes and additions to the governor’s bill include, among others:
Senators Seek More from Charter School Sponsors
As the Senate prepares for its budget deliberations, Senators Padgett, Schuring and Gardner are also pushing a bill to increase accountability for charter school sponsors. On the whole, there is much to like in Senate Bill 141 which proposes some smart and overdue changes in law. Most notably, it would make all sponsors directly accountable to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE)--regardless of whether they initially approved them for sponsorship. (Of the 69 charter school sponsors in Ohio, just 15 are directly accountable to ODE.) The bill would also grant ODE some much-needed authority to sanction sponsors for bad behavior by placing them on probationary status and suspending or even restricting their operations. These measures could help ensure that sponsors (the primary quality control agents of charter schools) are held accountable for quality outcomes.
A note of caution is warranted, however. SB 141 would also require sponsors to intervene in the operations of low-performing schools--a measure that seems to be part of a growing movement in Ohio for sponsors to police their struggling wards. Yet “intervention” and the more commonly used phrase “technical assistance” are ill-defined, and more exhortations to offer both could push sponsors into the dangerous waters of overseeing and operating schools (we’ve noted the serious conflicts of interest in doing both here). Senators Padgett, Schuring and Gardner are right to require stricter oversight of schools by their sponsors. Let’s hope they also advocate for greater clarity in how sponsors should deliver it.
by Kristina Phillips-Schwartz, Quentin Suffren
Reviews and Analysis
Innovation in Indianapolis
In spite of the contentious debate over charter schools in Columbus, there are emerging opportunities for cities in the Buckeye State to pursue and implement innovative strategies and practices made available by the charter option (see above).
One such innovative practice involves mayors assuming control of schools and school districts from traditional school boards. In Cincinnati, there is talk (how serious remains to be seen) about empowering Mayor Mark Mallory to take over the operations of the Cincinnati Public Schools, by replacing its elected board with mayoral appointees (see here). Precedence for such takeovers exists in cities like Chicago, New York City, and Washington, DC. Yet before wading in too deep, interested mayors (or mayoral aspirants) should look seriously at Indianapolis for ideas on how a mayor can use his or her office to improve education.
In 2001, Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson birthed that city’s charter school program by persuading legislators to let him function as its sponsor (the organization that “licenses” charter schools to operate and ultimately holds them responsible for results). Since then, the mayor’s charter portfolio has grown to 16 schools serving 4,000 students, and these schools have put serious pressure on the Indianapolis Public Schools to improve their performance. Mayor Peterson’s schools are good schools, too. Indeed, Indianapolis charters have seen their students’ passage rates on state achievement tests outpace the statewide average. Several of them, such as KIPP Indianapolis College Prep, can boast dramatic gains. And 87 percent of parents with children in Indianapolis charter schools report overall satisfaction with them.
David Harris, the architect of Mayor Peterson’s charter program, points to four key factors in this tale of success, all of which represent unflagging dedication to fostering and maintaining innovative, high quality schools.
Civic leaders seeking to expand quality schooling options--or turn around low-performing districts using aspects of the charter model--would do well to consider these and other lessons in quality chartering. As Governor Strickland himself has noted, Ohio can learn from successful charter efforts in other states. Indianapolis’ highly-regarded charter program is case in point.
by Terry Ryan
Closing the Expectations Gap 2007
Achieve, Inc. deserves kudos for this "second annual" survey of states' progress "on the alignment of high school policies with the demands of college and work," an outgrowth of the American Diploma Project and the 2005 high school summit. But applaud softly, please, because the data presented here don't show huge progress and some of them indicate progress in directions that may not bear scrutiny. Get beyond the executive summary and you will encounter glum news about how few states are really aligning their high school exit and college entrance expectations in the sense of common "cut scores" rather than shared aspirational standards (Ohio’s efforts are still underway); how only five (Ohio not among them) have continuous data systems that bridge the K-12 to postsecondary divide; how few hold their high schools to account for the subsequent performance of their graduates (again no Ohio, here); and more.
In just one of fifty states (New York) do "postsecondary institutions find the state's end-of-course high school tests...challenging enough to determine whether incoming students are prepared to enroll in credit-bearing courses." Yes I know, it's barely two years since the summit--but it's been 24 years since A Nation at Risk, which cast most of its recommendations in terms of beefing up high school expectations and (vaguely) linking them to college requirements. One wishes that Ohio--an eager member of Achieve’s “network”--would lead the pack rather than falling among the many states reporting vague “efforts underway” on most benchmarks. Laudably, the state’s high school graduation requirements via the Ohio Core have strengthened, putting the Buckeye state on Achieve’s small (13 states) “honors” list in this category.
Achieve does good work and we at Fordham are proud of our affiliation with the American Diploma Project, but the evidence presented in this report suggests mighty slow progress by its members--including, on most items, our very own Buckeye State--in long-overdue directions. Read it here.
by Chester E. Finn, Jr.
Announcements
Charter Schools and Strange Bedfellows
Who knew that National Charter Schools Week could bring President George W. Bush and Senator Hillary Clinton together? President Bush issued an official proclamation designating April 29 - May 5, 2007 as National Charter Schools Week. And Senator Clinton introduced a resolution in the United States Senate praising charter school leaders, teachers, students and parents for their contributions to U.S. education.