In Ohio, educational management organizations (EMOs) play a significant role in educating children in charter schools. In fact, many charter schools in Ohio are operated by EMOs, and these serve an ever expanding percentage of the state’s charter students.
In Ohio, educational management organizations (EMOs) play a significant role in educating children in charter schools. In fact, many charter schools in Ohio are operated by EMOs, and these serve an ever expanding percentage of the state’s charter students. Unfortunately, there has been very little research available to show what impact these providers have had on children’s actual learning.
A new report by the Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center (CSRQ) is one of the first in the nation to quantify the impact of CMOs on education. The CSRQ Center Report on Education Service Providers evaluates the effectiveness and quality of seven of the largest EMOs in the country; most have some schools in Ohio.
Overall, the study found that only one model, Edison, has a solid body of evidence that it has steadily and consistently improved student achievement. The other models either don’t have enough evidence to rate one way or the other, or declined to give evidence to the researchers.
To read this important report click here.
That Oprah has discovered school reform is probably a good thing, if only because she adds middlebrow legitimacy and an immense audience to most of the causes that she embraces, and because far too many Americans (middle-, high-, and low-brow alike) need reminding their schools, too, not just those across town, need a kick in the pants.
Her two-part discussion on April 11 and 12 had millions of viewers. It had some fine moments and did a competent job of framing “the problem” with primary-secondary education in the U.S. It included an impassioned, convincing talk by Bill and Melinda Gates about the urgency of radical reform, in which their foundation is investing many millions. The two-part show also profiled three terrific schools that have succeeded in boosting the achievement of disadvantaged kids, thus illustrating what can be done despite the many barriers to change erected by the education establishment and the political system. Sacramento’s St. Hope Public Schools, San Diego’s High Tech High, and the District of Columbia’s KIPP school are all swell examples of schools that beat the odds.
What nobody on the Oprah show let their millions of views know, however, is that all three of these fine educational institutions are charter schools—and schools of choice. The word “charter” was never uttered—not by Oprah, not by the Gateses, not by the people describing these schools. The very omission of the word begs the conclusion that the show’s planners and producers banned it, or edited it out.
Why would this be? One can only speculate. At best, maybe they dream that schools don’t really need charter status to accomplish these things, or that the charter part of their existence isn’t all that important. At worst, it’s because they’re embarrassed, or politically afraid, to admit that critics of the public school monopoly might just be right: that it needs to be busted if kids, especially poor kids, are to have a ready supply of great schools to attend.
To be sure, not all great schools are chartered. And not all chartered schools are great. But when the fundamental attributes of three great schools profiled on national television include the facts that they operate outside the system, that they enjoy all sorts of freedom that the system doesn’t normally permit, and that they’re attended by kids who are there by choice rather than by assignment—when these features are central to the very existence and success of the schools, wouldn’t you think that Oprah and her guests might feel some obligation to let their viewers in on the secret?
(This piece first appeared as a guest comment on Eduwonk.com.)
Both the Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT) and the Ohio Education Association (OEA) have hinted in recent weeks that they are going to work to unionize charter school teachers. The move is not unique to Ohio. The American Federation of Teachers, for example, now represents teachers in 30 charter schools scattered across ten states.
Moreover, in New York City the United Federation of Teachers has opened an elementary charter school and has plans to open a secondary school in September. In California, Green Dot Public Schools operates five high-performing charter schools in Los Angeles and the teachers are part of Green Dot Public Schools’ teachers union.
But the overall good will that exists between charters and the unions outside Ohio is not to be found here. That’s because the OFT is aggressively trying to stop charter schools. Consider the case Ohio Federation of Teachers et al. v. Ohio State Board of Education, which is pending before the state Supreme Court. Both supporters and opponents of charter schools are watching to see if the high court rules in favor of the OFT, and decision that would mean:
It’s easy to see why charter supporters in the Buckeye State believe the efforts of the OFT and the OEA to organize teachers in existing charter schools is little more than another tactic to make life hard and increasingly costly for the state’s charter school operators.
Charter schools that are considering unionizing should remember that one of the freedoms most cherished by charter school operators is their ability to hire and fire teachers, without having to go through a long and expensive grievance process. A second significant freedom allows charter schools to reward truly outstanding teachers with better pay. Charter schools can pay teachers extra for excellent performance or for working longer hours, or teaching demanding subjects such as math; likewise, they can offer combat pay for teaching the toughest classes. Collective bargaining agreements make such flexible remuneration arrangements difficult if not impossible, and they far too often reward seniority over performance or school need.
None of this is to say that unions and charter schools cannot coexist in Ohio. In fact, the OFT and OEA could, instead of simply unionizing teachers, sponsor their own charter schools, a right afforded them under current state law.
It’s intriguing to imagine union-sponsored charter schools competing against the state’s current charters for students, teachers, and academic success. This would be far healthier competition than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars slugging it out in the courts.
Both the leadership of the OFT and the OEA have said that they aren’t opposed to the charter school idea, but that they think Ohio’s charters have got it all wrong. Okay, let them show us how to do it right.
Straight Talk About Charter Schools, by Randi Weingarten, United Federation of Teachers, April 4, 2006.
In Ohio, educational management organizations (EMOs) play a significant role in educating children in charter schools. In fact, many charter schools in Ohio are operated by EMOs, and these serve an ever expanding percentage of the state’s charter students. Unfortunately, there has been very little research available to show what impact these providers have had on children’s actual learning.
A new report by the Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center (CSRQ) is one of the first in the nation to quantify the impact of CMOs on education. The CSRQ Center Report on Education Service Providers evaluates the effectiveness and quality of seven of the largest EMOs in the country; most have some schools in Ohio.
Overall, the study found that only one model, Edison, has a solid body of evidence that it has steadily and consistently improved student achievement. The other models either don’t have enough evidence to rate one way or the other, or declined to give evidence to the researchers.
To read this important report click here.
