In K–12 education, states have historically granted monopolies to school districts. This tradition has left most parents and students with just one public school option—their local districts. Families seeking something different have had to pay handsomely (on top of their existing school tax obligations): They could pay for private school tuition, make a residential move, or homeschool. Recognizing the lack of school choices (and high-quality ones, too) facing many parents, Ohio policy makers have opened the school market to competition, whether through charter schools, inter-district open enrollment, or vouchers allowing students to attend private schools.
But tens of thousands of Buckeye families remain stuck with slim pickings when it comes to school choice. In rural, suburban, and small-town communities, most families don’t have charter school options (save for online schools, whose track record has been poor); and they are usually ineligible for vouchers that could open private school options, where available. Meanwhile, in Ohio’s urban areas, parents often have a fair number of choices. But as has been documented time and again, the quality of inner-city schools (district and charter) has not been consistently strong.
Ohio policy makers still have much work ahead to create a healthy, competitive environment among K–12 schools—one that ultimately benefits families and students. Here are four ways to move us closer to that goal.
Remove barriers to entry
The most unmistakable barrier to entry is Ohio’s geographic cap on charter schools, which forbids start-ups from locating in most suburban, small-town, and rural areas. Despite this cap, a handful of schools of choice have managed to attract students who sometimes travel vast distances to participate in their exceptional offerings.[1] Menlo Park Academy, a Cleveland-area charter school tailored to the needs of gifted students, draws from more than twenty districts. Two regional STEM schools (not charters, but still independent public schools) have opened in Ohio. Metro Early College High School attracts students from Columbus, but also from suburban districts like Hilliard, Upper Arlington, and Westerville; likewise, Dayton Regional STEM School draws pupils from a number of different communities.
These examples indicate that even in communities where charters are prohibited, families are seeking out different alternatives. By eliminating the cap, policy makers can awaken further demand for excellent schools of choice in all areas of the state. No one wanted an iPhone until the product came to market and consumers saw that it was worthwhile. Similarly, policy makers should promote the growth of innovative options and allow all Buckeye families to decide what they want in a school.
Eliminate unnecessary regulation
Excessive regulation discourages the growth of new schools, much like it does with startup businesses. In Entrepreneur magazine, Scott Shane of Case Western Reserve University writes, “Regulation hinders small business formation, growth, and job creation.” Echoing this remark, John Cochrane of the University of Chicago states, “The overwhelming cost of regulation is the economic dislocation: companies not started, products not produced, innovations not innovated.” In other words, smart businesses (and schools) simply won’t lay down roots in harsh regulatory environments—a shame, because society as a whole loses.
Specific to charter startups, a recent paper from NAPCS finds that high-performing charter organizations strongly consider the regulations of the market they intend to enter. The study identifies several non-negotiable freedoms, including those around budget, curriculum, personnel, and school culture. In order to foster new school growth, Ohio policy makers should ensure that charter regulations are not interfering with school-level autonomy. Of course, some regulations are essential, such as those that safeguard the physical health of students; but many others are not. The first step lawmakers can take is to examine Ohio’s charter school regulations and identify those that are unnecessary, create burdensome requirements, and discourage entry (hint: Start by reviewing charters’ non-exemption from teacher licensure and curriculum mandates).[2]
Increase charter and voucher funding
For too long, policy makers have woefully underfunded the education of charter and voucher students. While the average district student in Ohio receives more than $10,000 annually for their education, vouchers are worth less than $6,000, and charter students receive about $8,000. These funding disparities have dire consequences: Our recent survey indicates that charters cannot secure the best teachers and facilities when they receive significantly less funding than their nearest districts. One charter leader remarked, “Over the years, we have lost many very effective teachers to the larger district because we could not compete with the salaries they offered.” To enhance competition across sectors—creating a leveler playing field—policy makers should establish equitable funding for Ohio’s choice programs. Even more boldly, state authorities could proactively invest in the launch of new schools. In addition to what the state is slated to receive via its federal CSP grant, a modest state investment could attract new schools, help them start strong, and increase their odds of long-term success.
Provide good information
As the marketplace opens up, parents will need to become savvy school shoppers. To this end, state policy makers must continue to provide transparent and easy-to-use information about Ohio’s schools. The state’s school report card, with its user friendly A–F ratings, is an excellent start, as are websites run by greatschools.org and the Cleveland Transformation Alliance. Parents face the enormous challenge of sifting through myriad data points when deciding on schools. To support sound decision making, state and local leaders must provide useful information—based primarily on academic results—about school quality. As any consumer knows, information is critical to making smart decisions in a crowded marketplace.
As Senator Henry Clay once said, “Of all human powers operating on the affairs of mankind, none is greater than competition.” To be sure, the school marketplace is still ascending—mistakes are made and course corrections follow—and no market will ever be perfect. Yet competition and choice are good, and certainly much better than the traditional model of bureaucratic control. Ohio’s school policies must continue to promote healthy competition for the privilege of educating young people.
[1] While charters are not permitted to locate in non-challenged districts, they may draw students from such districts.
[2] House Bill 2, the recently passed charter law reform, primarily addressed matters in state and charter sponsor oversight and was careful not to add regulation at the school level. There remains a need to eliminate unnecessary regulation at the school level, both for charters and districts alike.
