Before Christmas, we gave you the rundown of all the media outlets that focused on charter quality and policy thanks to two Fordham-sponsored reports: Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) report on Charter School Performance in Ohio and Bellwether Education Partners’ The Road to Redemption: Ten Policy Recommendations for Ohio's Charter School Sector. The holidays are over now and we’re nearly a week into the new year and media outlets are still talking about the reports and largely concur on the need to improve Ohio’s charter sector. In case you missed the rash of editorials over the past two weeks, here’s a quick look at what they say:
On Christmas Eve, Fordham’s Chad Aldis appeared in the Columbus Dispatch with commentary about the relationship between bad law and bad charter schools. He focused first on the results from the CREDO report, which found that Ohio charter students, on average, lose an equivalent of 14 days of learning in reading and 43 days of learning in math relative to their district peers. Chad pointed out that while these numbers are bad in their own right, they are even more appalling when compared to charter results from across the country. “Michigan charters add 43 extra days of learning in [reading and math]; and in Tennessee, charters provide an eye-popping 86 additional days of learning in reading and 72 days in math,” he said. “Charter schools can and do work in many other places, so why not Ohio?” Chad also mentioned the Bellwether report, which serves as the basis for his recommendations to lawmakers on the next-steps necessary in the upcoming legislative session. Ensuring that charters receive more equitable funding is a priority, as is fashioning a simpler and more coherent charter law, removing conflicts of interest, and avoiding heavy-handed regulations on schools.
The editorial board at the Cleveland Plain Dealer agreed that Ohio charter law and policy need an overhaul in order to give Ohio parents “a real choice.” They cited CREDO’s Dr. Macke Raymond, who suggested that “disengaged charter school boards and charter school authorizers” have led to mediocre charter schools. Fortunately, as the editors point out, a much-needed reform is already in place; Ohio's new evaluation system for sponsors, which begins this month, will rate sponsors according to the academic performance of their students and other dimensions of quality authorizing. The Plain Dealer also noted that Cleveland charters are doing markedly better than the rest of Ohio’s charter sector, possibly due to the partnership between public schools and the city’s best charters. This should interest other urban districts, who could use the Cleveland partnership as a model for how to improve charters in their neck of the woods.
More pessimistic sentiments are expressed in the Toledo Blade, where editors doubt that Ohio lawmakers will accept the task of comprehensive reform. They believe lawmakers will resist reform not only because of the campaign contributions, but also because of the convoluted nature of current charter law. The editors rightly opine that charter reform should involve “equal emphasis on equality of opportunity and fiscal responsibility” and point out that charter reform is a cause that both political parties can support. They also claim that “black and Hispanic students in Ohio charter schools performed significantly worse than their counterparts in traditional public schools.” While it’s true that Hispanic charter students did do significantly worse than district Hispanic students, that is not true for black charter students. As we pointed out when the report was released, low-income black students actually benefit greatly from attending a charter school. In fact, the CREDO report estimated that low-income black students receive an equivalent of 22 additional days of learning in math and 29 additional days of learning in reading by attending a charter instead of a district school.
An editorial from the Youngstown Vindicator also expressed some skepticism about Ohio lawmakers’ commitment to revamping charter schools, but took a turn for the positive when editors acknowledged that Governor Kasich's comments “suggest that he is ready to do battle with the advocates of the status quo.” Although the Vindicator is—like the Blade—quick to point out that GOP candidates often benefit from contributions by charter operators, the editors end with applause for Kasich’s pledge and an urge for the governor to appoint a bipartisan commission to review the charter sector and recommend laws.
An editorial from the Akron Beacon Journal was also more positive about the potential for reform. Editors acknowledge that the expansion of Ohio’s charter sector has not been accompanied by “the necessary oversight and accountability” but disagree with Bellwether’s recommendation that locally generated tax revenues should follow the student. They also note that while lawmakers should get serious about oversight and accountability, they should also be careful to “preserve what works.” This could be a reference to the innovation and flexibility that is a hallmark of charter schools, and harkens back to Chad’s recommendation that lawmakers avoid heavy-handed regulation of schools.
Skeptics are right to acknowledge that comprehensive charter law and policy reform will be a heavy political lift. Yet reform is needed, and thanks go to the editorial boards of Ohio’s largest media outlets for using their bully pulpits to urge charter reform. We’re also pleased to note that charter reform looks to be one of Governor Kasich's key policy objectives in 2015. Ohio families deserve a plethora of quality choices, and students in charter schools deserve the quality education they were promised. These reports provide an excellent roadmap for Ohio lawmakers. It’s time for them to follow through.
