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).
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.
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.
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.
