THE OHIO EDUCATION GADFLY

A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
May 16, 2007, Volume 1, Number 34

Contents
Lessons of Charter School Sponsorship

Editorial

Capital Matters

Recommended Reading

Announcements

Errata


 

Lessons of Charter School Sponsorship
Two Years, Ten Lessons
It feels like the Fordham Foundation has been sponsoring Ohio charter schools for decades. In reality, though, we’re at the two-year mark--not counting many prior months when we agonized over whether to take this plunge; tried to learn from others who were doing it well in other states; sought (without great success) to persuade and prepare other Ohio-based organizations to enter this fray; and subjected ourselves and our board to much analysis, cost-projecting and pro-con debate.

As the 2006-7 school year comes to a close, Fordham’s sponsorship “portfolio” contains just nine of Ohio’s 300+ charter schools (seven of these we inherited from the Ohio Department of Education when that agency got out of the sponsorship business in 2005). Not many, you may think, but sponsoring even this number has been no easy task. It’s taken a lot of work and we’ve learned a ton. It’s been healthy to emerge from the ivory tower to work closely with real educators trying to do right by real children--almost all of them poor, minority and ill-served by traditional schools--in real places. Someone once defined a think-tank as a place where reality is examined to see if it accords with theory. I’ve come to view sponsorship as a crucible in which education theories are softened and sometimes melted by the considerable heat that reality can generate.

Part of Fordham’s mission and mandate as a sponsor is to try to make sense of this experience in ways that may benefit others in Ohio and beyond who are engaged, or might one day engage, in this important but under-analyzed precinct of contemporary education reform. It’s too soon to draw any definitive conclusions. But I’m ready to share ten early lessons, some partly-melted theories among them.

First, though, let me recapitulate what charter sponsors (aka authorizers) do--and don’t do. A sponsor bears the solemn responsibility of looking after the public interest in regard to the education of children attending “its” schools and the tax dollars entrusted to those schools on behalf of their pupils. Yet they don’t operate schools--at least they’re not supposed to. (Ohio has a few unfortunate exceptions.) Rather they “license” non-profit charter boards to create and operate schools for a limited period of time, then monitor the performance of those schools in several crucial areas (academic achievement, fiscal competence and organizational viability), as well as compliance with a host of laws and regulations. If the school’s board and operator do a good job, the sponsor may renew the charter. If not, the sponsor is supposed to provide the school with “technical assistance” (a sticky assignment, as you’ll see below), put it on probation, decline to renew its charter or even, in extreme cases, shut it down. Solemn responsibilities, indeed.

Here, in no particular order, is some of what we’ve learned so far:

  1. Ohio’s sponsorship market is a mixed blessing. Charter theory holds that states should have multiple sponsors so that no one entity can slam all doors in the face of would-be school operators--the more so if the sole sponsor option is a local school system that’s apt to reject charters in order to avoid the competition (and revenue loss) that they create. But be careful what you wish for. Ohio’s sponsorship “market” sometimes functions poorly, allowing mediocre schools to avoid oversight by shifting to less demanding sponsors and (because sponsors are funded via fees paid by the schools themselves) creating perverse economic incentives for sponsors and schools alike.
  2. Everyone benefits from having someone watch over his or her shoulder. That’s why corporations have auditors, why parents check on their children’s homework, why wives monitor their husbands’ alcohol consumption (and vice versa), and why state testing programs track the performance of public schools. In Ohio, however, many charter sponsors--including the two largest--are accountable to nobody but themselves. Neither the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) nor anybody else has legal responsibility for monitoring their performance in this key role or pulling the plug if they mess up. While we don’t always enjoy being accountable to ODE for our sponsorship work--and ill-considered changes in a few key positions there could make it downright painful--we do a better job because we know they’re watching. In my view, all sponsors should have to adhere to the same basic standards--and be fully transparent.
  3. It’s a mistake for sponsors to be financed by fees paid by their charter schools. The already under-funded schools view this as an onerous tax and have every reason to seek sponsors with low fees, whether or not they do a good job. And sponsors seeking to maximize their “business” by charging low fees may end up with too little revenue to deploy the expertise needed to do the job well.
  4. It’s a bigger mistake for sponsors to provide fee-based “services” to their schools. Whether these services take the form of business management, special education, professional development or something else, such an arrangement creates an inherent conflict of interest, invites profiteering by sponsors, and pressures schools to obtain services from entities that wield enormous power over their very existence.
  5. Quality sponsorship is costly, labor intensive and voracious in its appetite for pricey expertise. If Fordham didn’t have a small endowment, plus external subsidy for its sponsorship work by one of the nation’s large foundations, we’d long since have gone broke. I well understand why other sponsors are wont to maximize revenues--or minimize the oversight that they provide. Yet quality sponsorship is too important to a healthy charter school movement for this situation to be sustainable.
  6. It’s incredibly difficult to determine in advance whether a would-be operator is up to the many challenges of running a successful charter school. Indeed, it’s all too easy to err--to trust earnest intentions and forego the hard-nosed analysis of an organization’s track record, financial stability and governance; of an education plan’s curriculum, pedagogy and assessments; and of the histories and capacities of the people involved. Between earnest incompetence on the one hand and self-serving greed on the other, many sponsors have misjudged a prospective operator’s odds of succeeding. And even the surest-fire school plans can go awry if key individuals are taken ill, move away--or suddenly get indicted.
  7. Everything under the sun gets thrown at sponsors. From the standpoint of aggrieved school employees, disgruntled parents, muckraking journalists and fretful creditors, the sponsor looks like the local school board or superintendent’s office: a place to take one’s complaint and seek redress from higher authority. When something goes radically off the tracks--two dozen kids get food poisoning when tainted lettuce makes it into the lunchroom, the police get summoned after a student claims to have been molested--even though we don’t run the school, we are in some sense responsible for what happens there. No wonder we get asked why we didn’t prevent the problem. 
  8. Sponsorship carries risks of its own. These include legal liability, reputational damage, financial peril, vexed community relations and more--particularly for non-profit organizations. Trying to avoid missteps and do the right thing, our own attorneys’ bills have been hefty. We’ve had to get more insurance. And because we don’t enjoy the “sovereign immunity” of government agencies, we do fret about lawsuits filed by opportunistic (or genuinely distressed) individuals and eager tort lawyers.
  9. It’s far harder than theorists (like me) thought to actually close a mediocre (or even bad) school. Unless its students face imminent danger or someone has fled to Bermuda with the payroll, shuttering a school is a tricky business. Parents and kids usually like their school, no matter its low test scores and torpid curriculum, and don’t want it closed any more than do the clients of a surplus district school. Worse, there may be no better educational option in the vicinity. (Remember why these families opted for the charter school in the first place.) Moreover, many charter boards and operators have deep community, political and institutional ties about which one must think twice before severing. What if the school is the darling of local business leaders and philanthropists? A “ministry” of a major local church? A path down which a wary school district might be drawn into chartering? One doesn’t casually close (or non-renew) such a school.
  10. Sponsors in Ohio have too few “intermediate” options for putting pressure on their schools to improve without threatening a shut-down. Yet the state’s expectation that sponsors themselves will furnish faltering schools with “technical assistance” isn’t right, either. It conflates the role of social worker with that of policeman (see here) and invites conflicts of interest. (What if the school faithfully follows the sponsor’s advice but still produces woeful results? Whose responsibility is that?) I’m glad to refer “our” sponsored schools to other competent sources of technical assistance and back-office operations, but if we’re to hold them accountable for their results, we shouldn’t be deeply implicated in their operational decisions.

That’s ten. Note, though, that they’re but a few small tributaries of a very big river. We’re still exploring it, learning as we go. For charters to be done right, sponsorship (and much else) needs to be done right. Nobody has yet written “Sponsorship for Dummies.” What you’ve just read may be chapter one. But don’t expect it to be a short book.

by Chester E. Finn, Jr.

Editorial
On Making Lemonade: DPS Should See Levy Defeat as Opportunity
The decisive recent levy defeat (by a margin of 58 to 42 percent) was indisputably a blow to the Dayton Public Schools (DPS), bringing grim fiscal realities that will force district leaders to scale back certain programs, curtail some activities and furlough a number of teachers and staff--much of this in less than two months.

Downsizing an organization is never easy and laying off scores of employees is truly wrenching. It’s harder still in the public sector, where contractual obligations, political pressures and community needs whipsaw executives seeking to make “rational” choices and do the “right thing”. These won’t be easy weeks for DPS leaders. Yet if they move thoughtfully and strategically, in the medium and long term Dayton could benefit educationally from the short-term agony. The challenge is to use the fiscal stress as leverage to focus on key priorities and rethink some long-time practices and assumptions.
That’s begun to happen in other cities. Consider Denver, where tight budgets, outdated procedures, restrictive contracts and a student exodus to other (especially charter) schools have prompted superintendent Michael Bennet (see here) and every single member of the school board to approach the community with an exciting future vision of a radically different kind of school system--one that would embrace choice, differentiate schools, empower principals, decentralize authority, create new career paths for teachers and foster greater transparency and accountability across the system. It would also reach out to high quality charter operators like KIPP and Achievement First for school partnerships.

Consider Chicago, where the city’s Renaissance 2010 program is reconstituting schools, outsourcing others and incorporating the “charter” principle in turning a centrally managed bureaucracy into something more akin to a “portfolio” of diverse schools. Or just look west down I-70 at the innovative education goings-on in Indianapolis, where Mayor Bart Peterson's office sponsors 16 charter schools and is working with local superintendents to open more in their districts (see here).

Dayton is smaller, yes, but it, too, could bring its public education system into the 21st century by rethinking district-school relations, the constructive (and competitive) uses of school choice, new ways of deploying and compensating personnel, and different approaches to management. We’re not talking “new programs”--i.e., the sort of thing that typically calls for extra money and additional layers. We’re talking about changing the way the community approaches its “core business” of educating the next generation. In the months ahead, DPS can start that ambitious makeover by affirming four key concepts:

  1.  Redoubling its academic progress in core subjects;
  2. Embracing school choice and developing mutually beneficial partnerships with quality charter and private schools;
  3. Giving principals the authority they need--especially over school budgets, personnel and instruction--to lead successful schools for whose results they are in turn held accountable; and
  4. Increasing parental and community buy-in, pointing toward future public support for additional resources.

This means that upcoming cuts in personnel and programs should be made with a scalpel, mindful of their impact on student learning. (Despite recent gains, fully half of DPS pupils are proficient in neither reading nor mathematics.) The district must strive to retain its best principals and teachers, signing these educators to new contracts that, for principals, offer greater operational and instructional autonomy in exchange for direct accountability. In doing so, district leaders must recognize that their top performers may not always be their longest-serving employees and that seniority must yield to performance if children are to benefit.

Rather than turning its back on school choice and charter schools, DPS should welcome them through the front door. Indeed, embracing and capitalizing on school choice in Dayton is both sound policy and a prerequisite for the district’s survival. DPS would do well to identify and protect those schools that have strong academic foundations and community buy-in--such as the all-girls Charity Adams Early Academy, the Dayton Early College Academy and World of Wonder School. They represent more than expanded schooling options; they also lay out a path that the district could tread and widen to meet the needs of the community. Parents who choose their children’s schools make a commitment--and the sooner the district recommits to them, the sooner its fiscal prospects will brighten.

DPS shouldn’t be shy about reaching out for help. In the short term, it should seek counsel from experts who can assist the district to develop a cost reduction strategy that maintains a focus on quality education. Longer term, it should seek partnerships with high-performing charter school operators and networks to see if they are game to take over the operation of some of the district’s most troubled (or expensive) schools. The district can also offer extant charter schools options, selling them specialized services like special education, business management, teacher development, even charter sponsorship. As we’ve noted before (see here), DPS could certainly bring in revenues and goodwill by negotiating facility agreements with quality charters--even private schools serving voucher-bearing children--that crave decent buildings. It could also partner with charter and private schools on sorely needed pre-K and after-school programs.

While playing smart defense, DPS should not shun an aggressive offense. For instance, the district could quarterback a community move to bring to Montgomery County a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) high school. Such a STEM school could be a place of innovation and excellence, benefiting secondary students across the county, while garnering community support, business partnerships and philanthropic (as well as state and federal) dollars. Arrangements could even be made to ensure that DPS teachers benefit by participating in shared professional development opportunities with STEM teachers and staff.

Many more examples could certainly be offered. There’s no denying that DPS has been handed a lemon. But with vision and determination, the result might yet be lemonade.

by Terry Ryan

Capital Matters
Grand Schemes, Grim News, and a Little Grousing

A piece of the pie
The spring legislative session is heating up, with the Senate Finance and Financial Institutions Committee now deliberating on the House version of the state budget bill (see here). (Though it remains to be seen whether the Senate can maintain the unwonted bipartisan accord achieved the by House.) As the committee kicked-off hearings on the bill, it quickly became apparent that legislators have no shortage of ideas when it comes to how and where dollars should be spent to improve the education system. Senator Gary Cates (R-West Chester) is seeking a funding guarantee for rapidly growing districts; Senator Joy Padgett (R-Coshocton) wants dollars allocated to programs encouraging students to pursue postsecondary education (like the Post Secondary Educational Option); and Senator Randy Gardner (R-Bowling Green) is seeking to offer incentives for schools that implement the Ohio Core curriculum in advance of the 2014 deadline. None of them bad ideas per se (though not all good, either), but as this finite educational funding pie gets divvied up, more than a couple folks are bound to be staring at an empty plate.

Giving it to us straight
Few people deliver grim news as well as Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust and a leading child advocate in the field of education. Last week, she spoke at a packed event in Columbus (presented by the Columbus Metropolitan Club and sponsored by KidsOhio.org). The state’s leading educators, business leaders, philanthropic organizations and policymakers turned out for a hot lunch and some chilling statistics about the state of our nation’s schools and the loss of our competitive edge in most grades and subject areas on international assessments. While acknowledging gains Ohio has made, she reminded parties of its staggering and persistent achievement gaps as evidence of work yet to be done. Balancing the bitter with the sweet, Ms. Haycock also shared stories of high performing schools serving poor and/or minority students throughout the country--along with some specific (and common-sense) steps that we need to take in Ohio. Perhaps most notable was her emphatic contention that all good schools--be they charter or district--need help and support replicating, just as bad schools must be closed (view her presentation here).

All about the adults
More money and less reform. That seems to be the thrust of the joint letter (see here) sent to Senate President Bill Harris (R-Ashland) by the Ohio Education Association, Buckeye Association of School Administrators, Ohio Association of School Business Officials and Ohio School Boards Association. Concerned about several provisions of the House-passed budget bill, the foursome lobbied for, among other things:

Sadly, there’s precious little that relates to improving student achievement or expanding quality learning opportunities for children in the letter. This one’s all about the adults.

by Kristina Phillips-Schwartz, Quentin Suffren

Recommended Reading
Global Warming (to School Vouchers)
Though school vouchers have met with a chilly reception by some in Ohio, other countries have warmed up to them quite nicely--for good reason, too. There’s mounting evidence that they’re having a considerable impact on student outcomes. Consider Columbia (yes, Columbia). During the 1990s, its government instituted a voucher program to increase access to high schools, providing over 125,000 students (via a lottery) with about half the cost of tuition at a private school. Researchers have found that those in the program were 15 to 20 percent more likely to finish high school, had lower rates of grade repetition, earned higher scores on academic assessments, and were more likely to sit for college entrance exams. In Sweden, education reforms in the early 1990s resulted in greater choice for parents and students via a government-funded voucher program. The result has been expanded schooling options and some compelling proof that competition and choice raise standards for everyone. As senators in Ohio debate the future of the state’s fledgling voucher program--as well as a new special education voucher initiative, they might want to look abroad for a little guidance and some compelling evidence for offering Ohio’s parents more choices and opportunities for their children’s education.

“Free to Choose, and Learn,” The Economist, May 3, 2007.

Announcements
Come Work With Us!
The Fordham Institute seeks two talented individuals to fill positions in its Ohio offices: an Editor/Researcher to be based in either our Dayton or Columbus office; and a Research and Data Analyst for our Dayton office. Both must be interested in education policy and reform, tireless workers, and in general accord with Fordham's principles. We especially appreciate a literate mind and a sense of humor. For more information about the Editor/Researcher position, click here. For a complete description of the Research and Data Analyst opportunity, click here.

Charter School Board Governance 101
The May 4th charter school board governance training, held in Columbus, drew almost 100 board members and charter school stakeholders from across the state. Participants left with vital information about effective school governance and the myriad regulations, guidelines and statutes affecting Ohio’s charter schools--all presented by national and state experts. Event materials and presentations are available here.

Errata
Correction
Alas, in our last issue our announcement of official accord between President George W. Bush and U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton during National Charter Week was just wishful thinking. While both certainly are and have been supportive of charter schools, Senator Clinton did not introduce a resolution in the Senate praising them.