Public charter schools are one of the most enduring—and successful—educational innovations over the past three decades. Freed from suffocating union contracts and distracting school board politics, charter schools can create distinctive programs, assemble teams of mission-aligned educators, and maintain a clear focus on student needs. Today, approximately 4 million U.S. students attend the nation’s 8,000-plus charter schools; in Ohio, roughly 120,000 students attend the state’s 340 charters.
In exchange for these freedoms, charters are expected to deliver stronger academic outcomes. When they fall short, accountability mechanisms come into play, measures rarely found in the traditional district sector. These include corrective actions required by state officials or their sponsor (a.k.a. “authorizer,” the entity that allows a charter school to operate), immediate funding reductions when dissatisfied parents disenroll their children, and permanent closure by their sponsor or directly by state action if they chronically underperform.
The autonomy-in-return-for-accountability model has effectively served millions of American youngsters. According to the most recent national study by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, the average charter student makes greater academic progress each year than a similar student attending a district school. In Boston, researchers estimate that its finest charters close the yawning Black-White achievement gap by one-fifth to one-third each year. New York City’s famed Success Academy charter schools consistently register near-perfect proficiency rates on state exams. Ohio also has success stories, including well-regarded charters such as Dayton Early College Academy, KIPP Columbus, and the United Schools (all proudly sponsored by our sister organization, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation).
Other charter schools, however, have struggled and many have closed due to accountability pressures and often-related fiscal challenges. In the early days of Ohio’s charter movement, too many schools were hastily launched, and others suffered from weak accountability and severe underfunding. Urged by choice-friendly and quality-centered advocates, including the Fordham Institute, Ohio has undertaken a decade-long turnaround effort via two main policy levers—both aimed at driving higher student achievement, an outcome the present report evaluates.
- Stronger state oversight of charter sponsors. Ohio has long permitted various entities—e.g., local districts, educational service centers, and qualified nonprofits—to sponsor charter schools. A multi-sponsor system promotes competition and innovation, but without rigorous state oversight, it also allowed the growth of weak sponsors and lax accountability in Ohio’s charter sector. Enacted in 2015, House Bill 2 strengthened the state’s fledgling effort to hold sponsors more accountable for the performance of their schools. The legislation established consequences—including revocation—when sponsors turn a blind eye to quality. This tougher oversight had an immediate impact, with the number of sponsors falling from 66 in 2013 to just 19 by 2022 (18 are active today). The system also encouraged sponsors to shutter low-performing schools. Between 2016 and 2022, just over 100 Ohio charter schools closed (out of nearly 400 at baseline), with most closures occurring through sponsor action
- More equitable funding for high-performing charter schools. Charter schools in Ohio, as in most states, have long operated with far less funding per student than their district counterparts, making it far harder to maintain high-performing schools. With the accountability framework solidified, state leaders tackled this major challenge confronting the charter sector. First enacted through the biennial budget for fiscal 2020 and 2021, the Quality Community School Support Fund has provided much-needed supplemental aid to qualifying schools, ranging from approximately $1,000 to $3,000 per pupil, depending on year. (In Ohio legalese, charter schools are known as “community schools.” See here for program details.) The extra dollars have been a gamechanger, narrowing the per-pupil funding gap between these high performers and their local district from an approximately 30 percent shortfall to 10 percent. In 2025–26, 116 of Ohio’s 348 charters qualified for the program.
As noted above, the goal of these reforms is to deliver better learning outcomes for students. Fordham’s latest study supplies hard evidence that they have indeed moved the achievement needle. Titled Ohio Charter Schools’ Turnaround, 2007–2025: The Role of Funding and Accountability in their Performance Trajectory and conducted by Dr. Stéphane Lavertu, an Ohio State University professor and Fordham Institute research fellow, it has two findings that stand out.
First, the overall performance of Ohio charter schools—the brick-and-mortar variety—has markedly improved. In 2007, the average charter student was losing ground in math and reading compared to a similar student attending a district school. The reverse is true today. In 2025, the average brick-and-mortar charter student gained the equivalent of 25 to 35 additional days of learning in both math and reading versus her district-attending counterpart. While the quality of individual charter schools still varies, the average Ohio charter today provides a better education than students’ typical district alternative.
Second, providing more equitable funding has bolstered achievement in the state’s high-quality charters. Consistent with an earlier report examining the program’s first four years, our new study continues to uncover positive impacts of the additional funds into fiscal 2024 and 2025. To better isolate the impact of the program funds, the analysis compares narrowly qualifying with nonqualifying charters, rather than charter students with district students. When doing this, we find that the extra dollars received by charter schools are associated with student gains worth about 50 to 60 days of additional learning.
Thanks to a decade of reform led by policymakers keen to ensure that charter schools serve students well, Ohio’s charter pupils are reaping the benefits of a more responsible, more accountable, better-funded, and higher-performing charter sector. Although charter students make more progress than they would attending district schools, most charter students (largely from low-income families) still score below the statewide average: For instance, 45 percent of third-grade charter students achieved reading proficiency in 2024–25 versus 61 percent statewide. Given this still-wide achievement gap, the work of helping every charter student reach their full potential remains unfinished.
What to do? On the policy side, state lawmakers must continue to insist on strong accountability measures even in the face of demands—sometimes, unfortunately, from the charter sector itself—to water them down. Lawmakers still have their work cut out to ensure that all charter students receive the benefits of fair and equitable funding—not just those fortunate enough to attend schools qualifying for the extra dollars. As we at the Fordham Institute have long contended, charter school students shouldn’t get shortchanged simply because of their choice of public school. Lastly, state leaders should continue to protect the autonomy of charter schools, while balancing such independence with expectations to implement high-quality curricula, achieve student attendance targets, and hire top-notch teachers knowledgeable in their content areas.
State lawmakers, including the next governor, should build on Ohio’s legacy of school choice and local autonomy as well as its more recent moves toward charter accountability and equitable funding. A renewed push for excellent charter schools will further empower families and put a next generation of charter students on pathways to success.
