Earlier this week, Policy Matters Ohio released a report on charter school accountability, the main finding of which is that when charter schools are operated by management organizations, for-profit and non-profit alike, too often the management organizations are running the show, not the independent boards that are legally the schools' owners.
We'll be the first to admit that Ohio charter school law allows for blurred lines of responsibility among operators, authorizers, and school boards ??? and Terry and Kathryn testified to the Ohio House and State Board of Education in recent months in support of efforts to clarify the roles and responsibilities of sponsors (aka authorizers), governing boards and operators.
While some of Policy Matters' findings are important to take note of ??? for example, if some charter schools' management structures are out of compliance with state law, as the report alleges, that's a problem that absolutely needs to be addressed ??? other items in the report raise an eyebrow about the validity of its conclusions.
While some of Policy Matters' findings are important to take note of, other items in the report raise an eyebrow about the validity of its conclusions.
First, the methodology is messy. The report compares select aspects of Ohio law to NACSA's principles for authorizers. Not Ohio charter laws to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools' model law. Not Ohio laws specifically regulating authorizing to the NACSA principles for authorizers. This report, then, is essentially a comparison of management company contracts to NACSA's principles for authorizers. Apples and oranges to say the least, and more than a bit misleading.
Then there is the research, which from our vantage point is riddled with errors. For example, two Fordham-authorized schools, both operated by EdisonLearning, are mentioned in the report. Policy Matters makes three claims against these schools that are inaccurate:
- That the members of the board were picked by Edison to be the board (p12). (Policy Matters never comes out and says this but that's the obvious inference.) In truth, these community and business leaders banded together ten years ago to create a better education option for school kids in Dayton, and chose Edison as the schools' operator through a competitive bidding process that was in fact reported on by the Dayton Daily News at the time;
- That the board relies on legal services from Edison (p14). This is wrong. The board uses the Dayton law firm Coolidge Wall for board matters, while Edison relies on its counsel for Edison matters (and Fordham as sponsor relies on its own lawyers); and
- That the board does not insist on independent accounting (p14). These schools, like all Ohio??charter schools, are audited annually by the state auditor. Fordham, as sponsor, sits in the final audit meetings with the school's treasurer ??? who is hired by the board and not Edison ??? and with the state auditor's team.
Policy Matters' bias toward traditional district schools and away from charter schools rears its head in several places.?? Just one example: the report goes after charter school board members who are compensated for their work, but is silent on the fact that district school board members are similarly compensated.
Finally, Fordham is described by the authors as ???a national think tank with a free market orientation toward education reform.??? Yes, we're staunch supporters of school choice, but we've been saying for years (and published a book to this effect in July) that choice for choice's sake isn't sufficient. There must be high standards and accountability in place to ensure the choices are good ones. In fact, we take this so seriously that, as an authorizer, we have closed three schools and put several others on notice.
- Emmy Partin
