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

Performance and growth among Ohio's high-poverty urban schools

Bianca Speranza
8.31.2011

On Monday we looked at charter school performance by authorizer type and structure and learned that neither seems to matter much when it comes to school quality. Today, with the continued help of our friends at Public Impact, we take a look at high-poverty schools in Ohio's Big 8 urban areas to see if charter or district schools demonstrated better success with this student population. For the purpose of this analysis ?high-poverty? is defined as schools serving a student population where at least 75 percent of students qualify as economically disadvantaged.

Chart 1 compares the distribution of Performance Index scores of high-poverty charters in the Big 8 to the distribution for high-poverty district schools in those cities. ?A greater percentage of charter schools than district schools have performance index scores of 100 or better (PI ranges from 0-120), and 2.9 percent of charters met or exceed the state goal of a PI score of 100, compared to 0.5 percent of district schools. High-poverty charter schools also had a higher percentage of schools with a PI score of 60 or below (7.6 percent), compared to only 3.9 percent of district schools. Despite the overrepresentation at both ends of the performance spectrum, high-poverty charters overall earned an average PI score of 78.2 compared to 77.3 for high-poverty district schools.

Chart 1: Distribution of Performance Index Scores, High-Poverty Ohio 8 Charter Schools vs. High-Poverty Ohio 8 District Schools, 2010-11

Note: Schools were sorted into five-point Performance Index score ranges (40.0 to 44.9, 45.0 to 49.9, etc.).? Each data point on the chart above indicates the percentage of charter or district schools that fell into that five-point Performance Index range. For example, the highest point of the blue charter curve indicates that 20 percent of all high-poverty charter schools and 23.7 percent of all high-poverty district schools earned a Performance Index score between 75.0 and 79.9.

CHART 2: 2010-11 Performance Index and Growth in Reading and Math, High-Poverty Ohio 8 Charter Schools vs. High-Poverty Ohio 8 District Schools

Chart 2 looks at PI and growth in reading and math for high-poverty charter schools vs. high-poverty district schools. The highest-performing schools made above expected growth and achieved a PI score of 100 or better, while the lowest performing schools made below expected growth and received a PI score of less than 80. As you can see, the largest percentage of schools fell in the lower, middle square, representing schools that made expected gains, but still earned a PI score below 80.

One of the most praiseworthy findings from today's analyses is that the only school- district or charter- that had both high growth and high achievement was the Dayton Early College Academy (DECA), located in Fordham's hometown of Dayton. DECA earned a PI of 100.5 and achieved above expected growth. Congratulations to DECA for earning this distinction and being the only high-poverty school to do so.

Stay tuned for more to analyses to come!

*Analyses by Dana Brinson, Daniela Doyle, and Tom Koester

-Bianca Speranza

Tags: Dayton Dayton Early College Academy DECA Ohio

Bianca was a policy and research associate in the Dayton office. Prior to this role, she worked as a research assistant and a research intern for Fordham. She came to Fordham as a recent graduate from Ohio State’s John Glenn School of Public Affairs, where she earned a Master’s in public administration. Prior to working at Fordham Bianca worked as a research assistant analyzing Ohio’s Step up To Quality Initiative.…

View Full Bio
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]