Thank you, President Gunlock and state board members, for giving me the opportunity to offer public comment today.
My name is Chad Aldis. I am the vice president for Ohio policy and advocacy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education-oriented nonprofit focused on research, analysis, and policy advocacy with offices in Columbus, Dayton, and Washington, D.C. In full disclosure, the Institute’s sister organization, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, is a sponsor of 11 charter schools, some of whom have been past winners of the federal Charter School Program (CSP) funds I am about to discuss.
CSP is a federal program dating back to 1994 that enables states to run their own state-level grant competitions for new charter schools. Since its inception, the US Department of Education has invested over $3 billion in charter schools nationally. The recently announced round of grants went to several states and directly to some high-performing charter school management companies. Ohio earned the biggest award--$32.5 million in FY15 towards a recommended total of $71 million.
I was surprised—more on that later—by some of the backlash Ohio’s win generated. Critics openly questioned whether Ohio’s charter sector deserved the award and whether the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) was competent to distribute it effectively.
Given the controversy surrounding the grant and Fordham’s focus on improving the quality of Ohio’s charter schools, we decided to take a closer look at how previous CSP-grant winning charter schools in our state have performed in comparison to charter schools that haven’t gotten grant funding. Here’s what we found looking at award winners from 2007 to 2013:
- 45 percent of CSP winners earned an A, B, or C on the state’s most recent (2013–14) Performance Index metric, compared to just more than one-quarter of non-CSP charter schools.
[[{"fid":"114970","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"style":"height: 238px; width: 500px;","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]
- The story is much the same when looking at value-added growth scores. CSP-winning schools that have earned a value-added growth score (those schools serving some combination of grades 4–8) also outperform their non-award-winning peers, with 66 percent earning an A, B, or C, compared to 50 percent of non-winners. Even better, 45 percent of schools earn an A or B: Students at these schools are demonstrating more than a year’s worth of growth.
[[{"fid":"114971","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"style":"height: 254px; width: 500px;","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]
As you can see, a closer look at past data suggests that CSP grant winners are more likely to perform better academically. That’s encouraging news, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it fails to quell the criticism of grant opponents.
Here’s what does surprise me. I’ve heard almost no one talking about ways that Ohio could use the $71 million grant to improve the quality of our charter schools. If administered correctly, I believe the grant gives us the opportunity to do just that.
First and foremost, ODE needs to establish a demanding and thorough application process for schools hoping to access grant funds. Charter schools applying for a grant to open a new school should be required to show a strong business plan and marketing analysis; demonstrate community need, support, and outreach plans; have a strong, experienced board; outline their academic and curricular model; and, most importantly, show evidence of past success in raising student achievement.
Second, Ohio’s high performing charter schools should be encouraged to apply for startup grants to help them replicate, and given help to work through the rigorous application process. While this prodding could come from the state, it would be an even better role for the philanthropic community. They could ensure that charter schools that have proven they can give Ohio kids a quality education have the support and resources necessary to develop a winning grant application that would enable them to replicate their success. Unfortunately, even after this replication, there will still be thousands of students across the state who don’t attend a high quality school.
This leads to the third necessary step: Ohio should recruit out-of-state, high performing charter networks. Ohio has long been a less than hospitable environment for the nation’s best charter networks due to well-documented weaknesses in our charter school governance and accountability framework as well as our relatively low per-pupil funding amount for charter school students. Passage of House Bill 2 should address the governance and accountability questions, and the federal grant could go a long way toward making the state more attractive from a financial standpoint. Recruiting charter networks that are achieving remarkable results for kids in other states would add immediate credibility to Ohio’s charter sector and would quickly increase the number of high quality options available.
Fourth, Ohio students will not only benefit from newly opened, high quality charter schools but also from the increased market pressure these schools will put on charter (and district) schools that aren't measuring up. Some of these low performers will close, and that’s a good thing—research shows that closing low-performing Ohio schools improves outcomes for students.
The past few weeks have been a historic time for Ohio charters, and the movement now has an opportunity to use a federal grant to affect positive change on the charter school sector. Ensuring that the grant application process is rigorous, expanding Ohio’s high performing charters, recruiting strong networks from out of state, and applying market pressure on our lowest performing schools are all essential if Ohio is going to use the grant to improve its charter sector. If the state succeeds in doing these things, thousands more Ohio kids stand to receive an education that puts them on the road to success. If it doesn’t, Ohio will have failed to capitalize on a golden opportunity.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Policy Priority:
Topics:
