The Fordham Institute has been engaged in a wide range of conversations recently about the Common Core and received national media attention for one of its charter schools.
Dayton Early College Academy (DECA) earns attention from national media
In a previous review, I examined The National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) Index of Essential Practices 2012 which discusses how states are doing in accomplishing the “essential practices” for charter school authorizing. Ohio sponsors performed well, even though they met some difficulty reaching higher marks because of Ohio’s charter school law. One of the critiques I had was that these essential practices were self-reported and did not fully unpack the policy implications for these authorizers and the states where they work. Recently, however, NACSA released an accompanying report called The State of Charter School Authorizing 2012 that elaborates on the Index by attaching policy recommendations for both authorizers and states. This report, using authorizer demographics and survey data from authorizers, shows that charter school authorizers and states can better serve their charter schools and hold them to higher accountability standards. NACSA finds that the authorizers are performing well on the index but still suffer challenges in closing schools, hiring experts, and working with state laws. Based on the survey findings, NACSA recommends the following for charter school authorizers and the state lawmakers:
Even though the report finds that authorizers are moving in the right direction with details like lower charter school application approval ratings (suggesting that authorizers are being more selective), the fact remains that there are charter schools that are failing to appropriately teach their kids. And it’s the role of authorizers to mature and develop the measures necessary to push the charter school movement forward.
SOURCE: National Association for Charter School Authorizers. The State of Charter School Authorizing 2012 (Washington, DC: National Association for Charter School Authorizers, 2013)
Ohio’s bright-eyed freshmen aren’t ready for college coursework. That’s the story from the Ohio Board of Regents, which reports that 40 percent of Ohio’s college freshman at public colleges and universities take remedial (high-school level) coursework in either math or English. Moreover, 14 percent of incoming freshman are required by their colleges to take both a remedial math and English class.
These are staggering numbers, with massive implications for students and taxpayers. For students who take a remedial course, Complete College America found that only 35 percent graduate in six years. This compares to 56 percent of all students. Similarly, the Ohio State University found that students who took remedial coursework graduated at a rate 30 points lower than their non-remedial peers. With these dismal results in mind, remedial coursework largely wastes the $130 million per year Ohio spends to support remedial education.
The chart below takes a closer look at the remediation rates for incoming freshman who attend an Ohio public college or university, by the public high school from which they graduated. The performance index generally indicates the quality of the high school. The chart shows three things:
SOURCE: Ohio Board of Regents, NOTE: Correlation = -.61. Public high schools with fewer than 10 of its graduates attending an Ohio public college university were excluded. Chart was inspired by Chad Aldeman, College- and Career-Ready: Using Outcomes to Hold High Schools Accountable for Student Success (Washington DC: Education Sector, 2010).
So, Ohio has a remediation crisis—and one that permeates a fair number of its best high schools. And Ohioans are right to ask what can be done to solve this crisis. But, in fact, Ohio’s policy makers and school leaders are taking steps to address it.
First, Ohio’s schools are implementing of the Common Core academic standards in math and English language arts. The Common Core are rigorous and college-ready standards. If faithfully implemented, they will strengthen the link between high school and college—which is weak according to a recent ACT report—and better ensure that incoming freshman come prepared for college.
Second, the Buckeye State is transitioning to new school report cards. These will include information—not previously included—about how well high schools prepare their students for college. One component of the new report card will include the percentage of students who attain a designated score on their ACT/SAT exam, whereupon the college can deem the student to be “remediation-free.” High schools, then, will be held accountable for making sure their students can jump right into college coursework, rather than allowing their upper classmen to coast to graduation.
Both measures—the Common Core and the state’s new report cards—will come online for Ohio public schools in 2014-15. And Ohio’s leaders, educators, and general public should support the Common Core and the state’s new accountability system, as policies intended to reduce the chasm between high school and college.
The Common Core academic standards—gearing up this year and next, and to be fully implemented by 2014-15—represent an overhaul in how teachers teach and how students learn. The new learning standards in English language arts and math will stress students’ reasoning and analytical skills—considered by many educators and researchers to be an improvement compared to how educating students has been done in recent times.
Consider the mounting evidence that the Common Core will be a change—if not a “monumental shift”—that pushes education in the right direction for the Buckeye State.
And, a growing number of educator surveys show the support that the Common Core has in the field:
Finally, the research on the Common Core indicates that it will raise expectations and demand more of students:
Bill Schmidt summarizes his research saying that “we finally have standards that are comparable to what the top-achieving countries have.” And, we at Fordham agree with Schmidt and the educators out in the field—the Common Core standards are fewer, higher, and deeper, and as such, are worthy of support.
[i] Interestingly, Porter (2011), using a different research method, draws less conclusive findings on whether the Common Core math standards have greater “focus” than Schmidt and Houang.
My colleague, Adam Emerson, recently penned a piece on rethinking charter school governance; specifically, how charter school governing entities (i.e., school boards) are structured and the pros and cons associated with different arrangements. It is a good piece, but I would argue that structure means nothing without capacity.
We have an internal saying within our charter school authorizing operation: “As the board goes, so goes the school.”
More often than not this proves to be the case, which is why board capacity – and by that I mean the collective strength of the school’s board to govern a fiscally, organizationally and academically healthy school that is achieving its goals for students - is critical.
Have a high performing charter school? Chances are it’s got a savvy board whose membership consists of mission-aligned individuals with diverse professional expertise and experience that is leveraged to advance a strategic and defined vision, and achieve a specific set of goals.
School not doing so well? Probably the issues start and end with the board, and will fester as long as the board lets them.
Adam touches on this issue by pointing out that education management companies and other service providers sometimes control charter school boards (as opposed to the board controlling the vendor). He’s absolutely right; this happens and it shouldn’t. However, to place the blame squarely on the vendors who contractually formalize (sometimes egregious) arrangements advantageous to the vendor with charter school governing boards misses the point. The school boards who agree to these terms are just as much at fault, and authorizers that acquiesce (or grant a charter without even looking at the management agreement) bear some responsibility, too.
Capacity is something that requires ongoing maintenance and at least an annual critique. Strong boards recognize and acknowledge their weaknesses and take action to address the issues; weak boards often tinker at the edges, thereby contributing to organizational malaise, which often tacitly exacerbates the problem(s).
So what’s the solution? For authorizers, try to catch the issues up front, before granting a charter. For fledgling boards new to the charter school world (and ideally in the concept phase), read everything and be able to tap the expertise of a financial analyst and a lawyer before signing anything. And, contact schools that a vendor you’re considering works with and find out what their experience has been. For existing boards, analyze your performance at least once a year: are you meeting your goals as a board and as a school? Most importantly, are students and taxpayers getting a return on their investment in you?
In a previous review, I examined The National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) Index of Essential Practices 2012 which discusses how states are doing in accomplishing the “essential practices” for charter school authorizing. Ohio sponsors performed well, even though they met some difficulty reaching higher marks because of Ohio’s charter school law. One of the critiques I had was that these essential practices were self-reported and did not fully unpack the policy implications for these authorizers and the states where they work. Recently, however, NACSA released an accompanying report called The State of Charter School Authorizing 2012 that elaborates on the Index by attaching policy recommendations for both authorizers and states. This report, using authorizer demographics and survey data from authorizers, shows that charter school authorizers and states can better serve their charter schools and hold them to higher accountability standards. NACSA finds that the authorizers are performing well on the index but still suffer challenges in closing schools, hiring experts, and working with state laws. Based on the survey findings, NACSA recommends the following for charter school authorizers and the state lawmakers:
Even though the report finds that authorizers are moving in the right direction with details like lower charter school application approval ratings (suggesting that authorizers are being more selective), the fact remains that there are charter schools that are failing to appropriately teach their kids. And it’s the role of authorizers to mature and develop the measures necessary to push the charter school movement forward.
SOURCE: National Association for Charter School Authorizers. The State of Charter School Authorizing 2012 (Washington, DC: National Association for Charter School Authorizers, 2013)
Dayton Early College Academy (DECA) earns attention from national media
