Ohio Speaker of the House Jon Husted (R-Kettering) took over four hours out of his very busy schedule Monday and visited two charter schools in Dayton, and plans more school visits across the state in the near future.
Ohio Speaker of the House Jon Husted (R-Kettering) took over four hours out of his very busy schedule Monday and visited two charter schools in Dayton, and plans more school visits across the state in the near future.
Husted visited ISUS, a premier drop-out recovery program, in the morning and spent nearly two hours at the Dayton Academy in the afternoon. He asked sharply focused questions of Dayton Academy board members, administrators and teachers, seeking to better understand the problems and potential of public charter schools in Ohio.
However, first impressions are important in schools as well as business.
“I can walk into a school and know in five minutes what I am going to find on the performance side,” Husted said. “If the children are well behaved, well mannered toward their teachers, then when you look at the report card, the grades are there. If you don’t see those things, you know it is going to be chaotic.”
Husted said his first impression at the Dayton Academy was of well-behaved and focused students, who carried around “a sense of pride.”
The school, created in 1999 and with a current enrollment of nearly 800, has shown steady progress in the state proficiency exams the last three years.
“We think we have a model here that can be replicated throughout the state,” said Dick Penry of Alliance Community Schools, which oversees both the Dayton Academy and the Dayton View Academy. Both schools are run by the Edison charter management organization.
Husted asked Penry what elements are necessary to make a successful charter school.
Over four-fifths of our high school students yearn to be challenged. According to The State of Our Nation’s Youth, a survey conducted by the Horatio Alger Association, 88 percent of high school students say that if schools set higher standards and raised expectations, they would work harder. A majority would also like to see opportunities for more challenging courses, provisions for real-world learning, and early advice from guidance counselors and teachers.
Another recent report, The Silent Epidemic, a study funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, found that 90 percent of high school dropouts reported having passing grades when they left school. The number one reason they left? They were bored.
The message is coming through: Today’s youth want more from their high schools. Access the full reports to find out more about students and their opinions.
“The State of Our Nation’s Youth,” Horatio Alger Association, 2005.
“The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of High School Dropouts,” by J. Bridgeland, J. Dilulio, K. Morison, March 2006.
In its fourth annual review of NCLB, the Center for Educational Policy (CEP) confirms that the impact of the law is even more complex than the political debate surrounding it. In this comprehensive and controversial study, CEP finds that one thing is certain: NCLB has dramatically altered the way school districts do business. Aligning curriculum to state standards, using data to drive instruction, and promoting academic growth for all student subgroups are three of the positive impacts of NCLB. One administrator notes, “Building by building, I see teachers sitting down and discussing low performing students.” However, from the start, states and school districts have complained of inadequate funding, a narrowing curriculum, and unreasonable requirements for special education students and English language learners.
What about achievement, accountability, and teacher quality? Here, the results are murkier. While states and districts point to increased numbers of schools meeting Adequate Yearly Progress goals as well as a narrowing achievement gap, data from the National Assessment of Education Progress and the Northwest Evaluation Association dispute these assessments. Correlate this discrepancy with a dizzying array of state tests and variety of methods used to interpret results, and it becomes clear that not everyone is playing by the same rules. As for teacher quality, districts are swelling the ranks of “high qualified” educators as defined under the law, yet administrators are skeptical that the effort will improve classroom instruction.
The Cleveland Municipal School District, like many urban districts, is on the front line of NCLB. Reform has meant reconstituting schools, standardizing curriculum, and testing throughout the year. Is it working? Gains have been made in reading but math scores continue to lag.
Recommendations from CEP for improving NCLB include calls for increased federal funding, greater clarity in state accountability measures, and more attention to other subject areas.
“From the Capital to the Classroom: Year Four of the No Child Left Behind Act,” Center for Education Policy, March 2006.
The picture is overwhelmingly clear: People in Massachusetts view public charter schools favorably because they are seen as delivering the goods academically and have be set up with solid rules, strong accountability and transparency. Those are three things Ohio’s charter school program is still developing.
A poll by the Massachusetts State House News Service and KRC Communication, conducted in early March 2006, showed that the state’s residents support charter schools by a 67 percent to 28 percent margin. Support is equally strong among men and women, and strongest among adults aged 18-39, with a 78 percent approval rating. This contrasts with a Fordham Foundation survey of Ohioans in November 2005 that showed 51 percent of citizens strongly or somewhat favored charter schools.
This latest poll information from Massachusetts underscores information reported in a recent series by the Cleveland Plain Dealer that spotlighted problems with charters in Ohio and pointed to Massachusetts as a more successful model.
Public support for charters in Massachusetts has grown since 2002. This support is connected to the fact that the academic performance of charter schools in Boston surpasses that of its district competitors.
In stark contrast to Ohio, the poll showed strong support among all political parties, although Republican support is firmest.
By a wide margin (54 percent to 37 percent) Massachusetts residents said they are in favor of raising the spending cap on charter schools in underperforming districts. The current law limits the portion of a district’s budget that can be transferred to charter schools, thus limiting the number of charter schools.
“Massachusetts State House News Service and KRC Communication Charter Poll," by Gerry Chervinsky, March 2006.
“Halfway Out the Door: Ohioans Sound Off on Public Schooling,” by Ann Duffett and Steve Farkas, November 2005.
Ohio’s charter schools are under a cloud. Recent articles in some of Ohio’s major newspapers have challenged charter school efficacy and have provided fodder for opponents who want to regulate these public schools out of existence.
Fortunately, the Ohio General Assembly is out in front on this problem. This past summer, House Bill 66 was passed, and it addresses many of the concerns raised by the newspapers. This new law, slightly modified by the recently enacted budget corrections bill, slows the growth of new charter schools to a crawl, allowing only operators with a proven record of success to establish new schools in the coming school year. The law also imposes more severe academic accountability measures on charter schools. Those that fail to deliver for three consecutive years will be closed.
Moreover, the law protects children in failing schools by allowing them to use the Ohio Education Choice Scholarship Program to switch to a private school. This is a big deal. For example, this means many of the 7,000 plus children attending Dayton charter schools could opt for a voucher and private school education in 2006-07 if the students find themselves in a failing school. Because of the new law, charter schools will need to offer real and impressive benefits in order to retain their student body.
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is in on the act, too. It’s working with the state’s 63 sponsors (50 of which are traditional school districts) to develop a Community School Sponsor Evaluation Framework that will hold all sponsors accountable for the performance of their schools. Sponsors are those organizations that “license” charters on the state’s behalf. These organizations are crucial in monitoring, guiding, and supporting schools, and in holding schools accountable for academic performance and financial stewardship. ODE’s Evaluation Framework will enable the department to place sanctions on sponsors that fail to do their jobs – including shutting down the worst performers.
So, when the “charters need more regulation” hue and cry comes every time a negative article appears in a publication, remember that important changes are already in place. Critics of charters should give these new regulations an opportunity to prove their worth before requesting still more regulations.
However, should the General Assembly reopen debate over charter school accountability and performance as a result of this uproar, there are two issues they might want to consider.
1. Funding sponsors. Sponsors collect fees from schools for their services, some as high as 3 percent. Under this system, sponsors have no motivation for closing, or threatening to close, a school. After all, if they do follow through, they loose money. The Ohio Assembly may want to explore ways of funding sponsors directly, rather than through fees imposed on the schools they sponsor.
2. Cash-strapped schools. The state’s charter schools are poorly funded. In Cleveland, for example, charters receive about $3,000 less per children than do district schools. Worse, the city’s charters receive no facility dollars. This reality makes operating high-performing charters difficult at best, and makes replicating high performing schools nearly impossible. Ohio should develop rewards and incentives for schools that perform, thereby allowing good ones to grow. For example, the state could provide additional funds for those charters that regularly meet or exceed state and federal standards. One possibility is to increase per-pupil spending by $500 for charters tagged as “continuous improvement” schools, $1,000 per pupil for “effective” schools, and $1,500 for “excellent” schools. Maintain those funding increments for, say, five-years (as long as the school maintains its performance, its enrollment and clean state audits), and these schools will thrive. Surely quality charters deserve funding levels that are on par with their district competitors?
Charter schools trigger emotional responses—both for and against—but cooler heads need to prevail in coming months. Charter school accountability has been ratcheted up. Before any new restrictions are considered, lawmakers need to proceed using the same cool rationale they have to date.
After all, even the worst storms come to an end.
Substitute House Bill 530, 126th General Assembly
As writer Joe Williams, author of Cheating Our Kids: How Politics and Greed Ruin Education, pointed out in our February Ohio Gadfly, school districts in Ohio use a process called “flagging” to disrupt the finances of charter schools. Flagging is where districts challenge a charter student’s eligibility, thus holding up the money for the student that the charter should receive. Given the animosity some districts feel toward charter schools, this sets up potential areas of conflict.
“This situation is akin to McDonald’s asking Burger King to sign off on payment every time a person ordered a Big Mac,” Williams wrote.
A flagging update: In recent days, Cincinnati Public Schools challenged the residency of 31 students at Harmony Community School, denying $100,000 owed to the school in state money. In another example, the Ohio Department of Education finally agreed to pay the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT), the state’s largest online charter school, $263,000 in past due tuition after three years of audits revealed it was owed to the school.
Charter schools face enough financial challenges without their competition holding power over the ledgers.
“Ohio to Pay Online School,” by Dennis Willard and Doug Oplinger, Akron Beacon Journal, April 3, 2006.
“CPS Presses Residency Issue: District Challenges Charter Over 31 Students,” by Jennifer Mrozowski, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 4, 2006.
In its fourth annual review of NCLB, the Center for Educational Policy (CEP) confirms that the impact of the law is even more complex than the political debate surrounding it. In this comprehensive and controversial study, CEP finds that one thing is certain: NCLB has dramatically altered the way school districts do business. Aligning curriculum to state standards, using data to drive instruction, and promoting academic growth for all student subgroups are three of the positive impacts of NCLB. One administrator notes, “Building by building, I see teachers sitting down and discussing low performing students.” However, from the start, states and school districts have complained of inadequate funding, a narrowing curriculum, and unreasonable requirements for special education students and English language learners.
What about achievement, accountability, and teacher quality? Here, the results are murkier. While states and districts point to increased numbers of schools meeting Adequate Yearly Progress goals as well as a narrowing achievement gap, data from the National Assessment of Education Progress and the Northwest Evaluation Association dispute these assessments. Correlate this discrepancy with a dizzying array of state tests and variety of methods used to interpret results, and it becomes clear that not everyone is playing by the same rules. As for teacher quality, districts are swelling the ranks of “high qualified” educators as defined under the law, yet administrators are skeptical that the effort will improve classroom instruction.
The Cleveland Municipal School District, like many urban districts, is on the front line of NCLB. Reform has meant reconstituting schools, standardizing curriculum, and testing throughout the year. Is it working? Gains have been made in reading but math scores continue to lag.
Recommendations from CEP for improving NCLB include calls for increased federal funding, greater clarity in state accountability measures, and more attention to other subject areas.
“From the Capital to the Classroom: Year Four of the No Child Left Behind Act,” Center for Education Policy, March 2006.
Over four-fifths of our high school students yearn to be challenged. According to The State of Our Nation’s Youth, a survey conducted by the Horatio Alger Association, 88 percent of high school students say that if schools set higher standards and raised expectations, they would work harder. A majority would also like to see opportunities for more challenging courses, provisions for real-world learning, and early advice from guidance counselors and teachers.
Another recent report, The Silent Epidemic, a study funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, found that 90 percent of high school dropouts reported having passing grades when they left school. The number one reason they left? They were bored.
The message is coming through: Today’s youth want more from their high schools. Access the full reports to find out more about students and their opinions.
“The State of Our Nation’s Youth,” Horatio Alger Association, 2005.
“The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of High School Dropouts,” by J. Bridgeland, J. Dilulio, K. Morison, March 2006.
Ohio Speaker of the House Jon Husted (R-Kettering) took over four hours out of his very busy schedule Monday and visited two charter schools in Dayton, and plans more school visits across the state in the near future.
Husted visited ISUS, a premier drop-out recovery program, in the morning and spent nearly two hours at the Dayton Academy in the afternoon. He asked sharply focused questions of Dayton Academy board members, administrators and teachers, seeking to better understand the problems and potential of public charter schools in Ohio.
However, first impressions are important in schools as well as business.
“I can walk into a school and know in five minutes what I am going to find on the performance side,” Husted said. “If the children are well behaved, well mannered toward their teachers, then when you look at the report card, the grades are there. If you don’t see those things, you know it is going to be chaotic.”
Husted said his first impression at the Dayton Academy was of well-behaved and focused students, who carried around “a sense of pride.”
The school, created in 1999 and with a current enrollment of nearly 800, has shown steady progress in the state proficiency exams the last three years.
“We think we have a model here that can be replicated throughout the state,” said Dick Penry of Alliance Community Schools, which oversees both the Dayton Academy and the Dayton View Academy. Both schools are run by the Edison charter management organization.
Husted asked Penry what elements are necessary to make a successful charter school.
