Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

Ohio Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
  • Research
  • Policy
  • Commentary
    • Ohio Gadfly Newsletter
    • Ohio Gadfly Blog
    • Events

Anecdotal evidence of the effects of competition on school districts in Ohio

Jeff Murray
4.6.2015

We recently looked at an analysis of New Orleans school leaders’ perceptions of competition and their responses to it. The top response was marketing—simply shouting louder to parents about a school’s existing programs, or adding bells and whistles. If schools are academically strong, this is probably fine. But if academically weak schools can pump up their enrollment (and their funding streams) by simply touting themselves to parents more effectively than competing schools, then the intended effect of competition—improved performance among all players in the market—will be blunted or absent all together.

In New Orleans, it appears that the more intense competition is perceived to be, the more likely schools are to improve academic quality as a means of differentiation. Is a similar thing happening in the Buckeye State? Here’s a look at some anecdotal evidence on quality-centered competition effects.

New school models

Large urban school districts in Ohio have long decried the students “stolen” from them by charter schools, and nothing rankles diehard traditionalists like online schools. So it was a little surprising to find that Akron City Schools’ proposed 2015–16 budget contains a huge technology component, including plans to start an in-house online charter school. This is being done in collaboration with Reynoldsburg City Schools, a district that knows a thing or two about innovation for improvement. Akron is aiming to recruit three hundred elementary students who are currently either home-schooled or attending a charter school, as well as forty in-district high school students who have “fallen behind on graduation credits.” It doesn’t really matter that the motivation is likely financial. If that’s what it takes to shake loose the status quo and try to create something better for kids already looking for something else, then so be it.

Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) is far down the path of new school models, including a push to incorporate newcomers from outside the traditional district. Bard College High School, a highly anticipated recent arrival on the West Side, was recruited by CMSD. Menlo Park Academy, Ohio’s only charter school for gifted students, will soon receive local tax revenue from the district as part of a partnership of excellence; Clevelanders will benefit from the school’s impending relocation/expansion, also on the West Side. What’s next? How about a charter boarding school for at-risk youth?

Parental choice

Already far ahead of many Ohio districts in offering options to families in urban areas, CMSD is also making strides through the Transformation Alliance (TA) in centralizing information for parents. What’s more, the TA received a grant in September to develop a universal enrollment system. A January report using New Orleans parental choice data indicated that these two steps were key in driving parents to choose the highest-quality schools available to them.

In Cincinnati City Schools, every district high school is a school of choice. Not all those schools are good ones, but increased access to those that are is a step forward. Additionally, the 7–12 grade span of all Cincinnati high schools is unique among urban districts in Ohio and could help accelerate and smooth the transition from middle to high school.

Inter-district open enrollment, an overlooked avenue of parental choice, is at its widest reach ever, with 81.5 percent of all districts in the state opening their doors in some form to students from outside their borders. A recent study conducted by the Mahoning County Education Services Commission looked at the funding and student achievement effects of open enrollment on both sending and receiving districts in the county. Far more winners than losers emerged. This isn’t news to most parents utilizing open enrollment, but it’s likely a revelation to district administrators.

Right-Sizing the district

Columbus City Schools, at its peak, enrolled over 110,000 students. That was in 1971. Just five years later, when the district’s newest high school opened, enrollment had fallen by nearly 14 percent. Today, enrollment stands around 51,000 students, stabilizing after decades of steady decline. Mayor Michael Coleman’s Education Commission urged “right-sizing” the district among its recommendations in 2013. That means not holding on to surplus school buildings in the hope that students and families will return. Instead, it means better serving those students who have chosen to stay even in the face of increasing high-quality options. It means that charter schools (hopefully the best of them) get much-needed facilities. If it also means lower maintenance expenses as well as a few extra million dollars in district coffers, that seems a change for the better all around.

**************

Anecdotally, it seems that the response to competition—charters, vouchers, e-schools, open enrollment—in Ohio is not much different than in New Orleans. Districts create schools to attract families, provide parents more public school choices and information on those choices, and right-size the district to best use its resources to educate the remaining students. Anything that education reformers in the Buckeye State can to do encourage more of the best kind of competition should be done.

Policy Priority:
School Choice
Topics:
Charter Schools
Tags: Akron Akron Public Schools Cincinnati Cleveland Municipal School District Columbus City School District Menlo Park Academy New Orleans Ohio Reynoldsburg City Schools
+4 More Show Less

Jeff Murray is a lifelong resident of central Ohio. He previously worked at School Choice Ohio and the Greater Columbus Arts Council. He has two degrees from the Ohio State University and lives in the Clintonville neighborhood with his wife.

He is proud every day to support the Fordham mission to help make excellent education options more…

View Full Bio

Related Content

view
Gadfly Guy

What we’re reading: October 9, 2026

The Education Gadfly 10.9.2026
NationalFlypaper
view
Gadfly Guy

Cheers and Jeers: October 9, 2026

The Education Gadfly 10.9.2026
NationalFlypaper
view
IRC committee blog image
Standards & Accountability

Industry credentials committee undermines the state’s new and improved framework

Aaron Churchill 10.9.2026
OhioOhio Gadfly Daily
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]