The Education Gadfly Weekly

Student transportation is as nuts-and-bolts as it gets. But if we want to expand access to quality schools, we have to get it right. Today, for all the expansion of school choice in Ohio and beyond, especially in urban areas, it’s far from clear how many students can physically access their top-choice schools. In a 2009 study, for example, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) found that low-income parents in Denver and Washington, D.C., were particularly likely to report that a lack of good transportation constrained their real-world choices.

This doesn’t come as a surprise. School transportation systems were designed for an era when practically all students attended the district-operated school nearest to their home. For a half-century now, students have ridden clunky school buses, and routing and scheduling schemes have assumed that pretty much everyone living in a particular neighborhood attends the same school, with relatively rare exceptions such as youngsters with significant disabilities. Moreover, some school systems have eschewed busing altogether—not a bad thing for kids who live within walking distance and in cities with crackerjack public-transport systems, but not a good thing in myriad other situations.

Ohio, though, was a pioneer in recognizing early on the value of transporting kids to their school of choice. Since 1966, private-school students (with some exceptions) have had the opportunity to ride a district school bus to their school of choice. Today, kids attend school all over the place, and increasingly often a school that is not the one assigned to them by convention. Last year, more than 300,000 Buckeye students attended a private school, enrolled in a brick-and-mortar charter, or participated in inter-district open enrollment. I’d wager that at least another 300,000 students attended a career-tech school, went to a magnet school within their home district, took classes at a college or university, or engaged in some form of work-study. The school-choice genie is most definitely out of the bottle, and the complexity of providing transportation services to so many different educational venues has left districts and schools of choice equally dissatisfied.

Now Ohio’s pupil-transportation system needs to catch up. To meet the demands of a choice-based education, that system must become nimbler, swifter, more cost-efficient, and a whole lot more consumer-centered. Achieving these objectives will require a ton of smart, innovative thinking, coordination across multiple entities, and a willingness to learn from other enterprises that face logistical challenges every day.

Plenty of issues await resolution. How do districts, charters, private schools, colleges, and even employers work cooperatively? How does one manage incompatible school schedules and calendars? What about midday and after-school transportation? Will students arrive at school on time or, better yet, “just in time”? Who pays for new infrastructure? Who owns and maintains the transportation fleet? How can we reduce travel times for students? How can the costs of transporting students be minimized over the long run? How do we ensure that all students—even those in remote areas—are included in the transportation system? What about student safety? Can technology solve these problems? The list could go on.

So when it comes to student transportation, there are many thorny questions. Businesses, however, have figured out how to transport packages and passengers quickly, reliably, and over long distances. And while transporting students is different than moving materials, schools can surely learn from how private enterprises design their networks. For instance, in Ohio’s metropolitan areas, what would a “hub-and-spoke” approach look like? Could students arrive at transit hubs and then take swifter modes of transportation—vans, cars, and heck even bikes—to traverse the “last mile” to school? What other models and “best practices” are out there? (Read about Denver’s Success Express shuttle service.) How about vouchers for needy families to purchase transportation? Ride-sharing programs? Private shuttle or taxi services? Improved integration between school transportation and public transit?

Ohio spends just over a half-billion state dollars per year just on pupil transportation. Tens of millions more are spent by families who pay out-of-pocket to drive their children to and from school. Yet despite this gigantic expenditure—both public and private dollars—too many students still don’t have the transportation they need to attend the school of their choice. It’s time to imagine a faster and more agile student-transportation system in Ohio.

Last week, the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools (OAPCS) announced that Darlene Chambers would take the helm of the organization as its new president and chief executive officer. Darlene takes over for Bill Sims, whose steady leadership guided the group for its first seven years. Leadership changes at any organization present challenges and opportunities, but in this case those are one and the same: the need to improve the quality of Ohio’s charter-school sector.

At the beginning of this year, we stated the obvious: that Ohio’s charter sector has too many low performers. We went on to suggest that it’s incumbent upon charter supporters to lead the effort to improve quality. Darlene’s background uniquely positions her to steer a course toward quality. As the executive director of a leading charter sponsor, the Ohio Council of Community Schools, Darlene understands more than most the difficult and important decisions that sponsors face when deciding whether to renew a charter contract or to close a school. She also has learned firsthand (as has Fordham) that nonrenewal or closure is hard but is sometimes the right decision for kids.

In addition to her role at OCCS, Chambers is also the outgoing president of the Ohio Association of Charter School Authorizers. This collection of Buckeye sponsors has been an advocate for higher-quality charter authorizing. Given the importance placed on the role of effective authorizing at the state and national level, this gives Darlene a unique and necessary perspective that will serve her well as she navigates Ohio’s charter quality challenges.

Over the past several months, the winds of change have started to blow, and therein lies the real opportunity. Consider these positive recent developments supporting increased charter-school quality:

Leadership from the Ohio Department of Education

Within the last half year, the Ohio Department of Education, under the leadership of State Superintendent Richard Ross and Director of Quality School Choice David Hansen, has taken a more aggressive role in ensuring charter schools are serving kids well. In October, Ross took the virtually unprecedented step of closing two schools that weren’t measuring up, saying, “It is unacceptable and intolerable that a sponsor and school would do such a poor job. It is an educational travesty.” Just last month, ODE, after a thorough review of the processes being used by six separate charter authorizers, put three of them on notice, stating that if they continue with their plans to open new schools this fall, they will lose their ability to sponsor schools in the future. While it’s a shame that this sort of aggressive stance by ODE is needed, the rate of closure among newly opened schools and the mediocre performance of many that were previously authorized (and in most cases renewed) leave little doubt that it is.

Auditor of State reenters the fray

ODE isn’t alone in focusing on charter authorizing. In the wake of some high-visibility school closures in Columbus, Auditor Dave Yost’s office announced that it is taking a closer look at three authorizers’ operations. The deep familiarity that the auditor’s office has with charter operations through the annual audits that it collects, reviews, and releases each year should prove valuable when examining authorizers. Again, we feel like this ought not be needed, but the heedless behavior of too many Ohio sponsors has made it inevitable.

Ohio House proposes closing loophole

The House of Representatives, under the leadership of Speaker Batchelder, has been a relentless advocate in expanding school choice for Ohio kids—and a lot of that has indeed come about due to his leadership. But it’s no secret that we’ve raised doubts over the years regarding the House’s commitment to school quality, accountability, and transparency. A new dawn is glimmering, though, and the House deserves plaudits for recent changes it added into House Bill 487 (the education MBR) that will close a loophole that could be exploited by charter schools required to be closed for low academic performance.

Ohio’s mandatory closure has drawn national praise, but there have been situations—allowed under current law—in which schools could sidestep the mandatory closure by using legalistic maneuvers to create a new nonprofit school even if all the players remain the same. The new House language addresses that by preventing a closed school from reopening under another name if it has the same sponsor, the same chief administrator, any of the same governing board members, or 50 percent or more of the same teachers or administrators. These common-sense changes will put another few teeth into Ohio’s mandatory closure provisions by ensuring that a new school that opens is actually a new school. Let’s also remember, however, that with proper sponsorship the state wouldn’t need this “death penalty” for low-performing schools. Authorizers would never let them get to that point.

Media attention

Late last year, the Columbus Dispatch shone a spotlight on the struggles of some Columbus-area charter schools. The alarming stories served as wakeup calls to political leaders that some charters were not living up to their promises. Some of the responses noted above were likely influenced by those situations—and that exposure. This year, the media has continued to place the focus on issues likely affecting charter-school quality, with a recent series of stories in the Akron Beacon Journal calling into question the openness of charters and the transparency surrounding their funding. While media coverage can be frustrating for charter advocates, it’s important when media coverage points out areas of law that can be improved to better serve Ohio’s charter-school students that supporters capitalize on the public awareness that often results to make the necessary changes and not automatically write the findings off as media bias.

Charter supporters increasingly demand quality

Perhaps most encouraging is the fact that many longtime charter-school supporters are paying more attention to quality. A notable example is the recent guest post in the Ohio Gadfly by Ron Adler of the Ohio Council for Quality Education. In addition, Peggy Young of the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, an authorizer of charter schools, emphasized the importance of quality authorizing and supported the Ohio Department of Education’s efforts to develop a rigorous assessment of authorizer performance in a letter to the Columbus Dispatch. While charter supporters have long recognized and advocated for quality schools behind the scenes, taking the issue into the public eye is a new and welcome addition to the charter-quality landscape. Again, as we wrote in January, charter advocates have the responsibility to lead the fight for quality schools and are best positioned to do so successfully.

***

Our sincere congratulations go out to Darlene and OAPCS. While it is a challenging time to take the wheel, we are excited about what her leadership will bring. As she charts her own course on the issue of charter quality, we trust that she’ll feel the strong winds (political, media, and charter advocate) at her back, hoist the sails, and steer a path toward ever better educational opportunities for Ohio’s charter students.

The digital revolution is sweeping across Ohio. This year, twenty-six e-schools, twelve of which serve students throughout the state, will educate 40,000 or so youngsters. Countless more students will learn in a “blended” classroom or take an online course at their brick-and-mortar school.

One emerging use of technology is to help secondary students recover credit.  At first glance, the flexibility of online learning seems to be tailor-made for students who, for whatever reason, are in dire need of credit recovery. But in her recent Education Next article, journalist Sarah Carr documents a few of the flies in the ointment when it comes to this nascent, computer-based approach to credit recovery.

First, the data and research about online credit-recovery are simply far “too incomplete.” According to an AIR analyst with whom Carr spoke, “Even basic questions are unanswered, like the size of the business [i.e., online learning providers] and the size of the need.” Second, she finds that there is practically no way to determine the quality of an online course provider. In fact, Carr described a New Orleans school where the principal ditched one provider because its courses failed to engage her students and the quizzes were mostly recycled until the student passed them. Lacking an external quality-control authority, the vetting of online courses remains the duty of local educators. Third, Carr provides a few examples of how credit-recovery can be misused and abused. She cites a New York City incident in which administrators pushed failing students into a credit-recovery program, evidently for the sole purpose of boosting graduation rates.

Meanwhile, the NCAA has ramped up its scrutiny of high school transcripts that include credits earned via online course taking. An NCAA spokesman remarked, “When kids are just clicking their way through courses, that’s generally not a college prep experience.”

Carr’s exposé jibes with the Ohio Auditor of State’s report on Columbus City Schools, which discovered awful abuses of its online credit-recovery program. (One can read the sordid details on pages forty-two to forty-five.) In fact, this article is yet another stark reminder that while digital education is moving at breathtaking speed, data and research, quality control, and accountability in this realm are all moving at a snail’s pace. Can Ohio’s educators, researchers, and policymakers keep up?

• Up to fifty-three staff members could be let go in Cleveland Municipal School District (that’s teachers and other staff) at the end of the school year, out of an initial sixty-eight identified as underperforming by building principals. The details of the process are fascinating and instructive, but this is proof-positive that CEO Eric Gordon is serious about the reforms he championed in the district, including supporting his principals in weeding out bad performers.
• Lorain City Schools was one of many districts around the Buckeye State to pilot the new PARCC exams last month. There were far fewer technological snags than most had predicted, and teachers in Lorain have no fear that they can teach their students all they need to meet and beat the higher expectations of the Common Core–aligned tests.
• The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an excellent series of articles last week looking at the state-of-play in many suburban school districts with regard to the Third Grade Reading Guarantee: where they stood after the fall test, what results they expect from the impending spring test, and what they plan to do with the rest of the school year and into summer to make sure their third graders test proficient and move on to fourth grade. To show the diversity of the series, officials in the tiny Mayfield Schools say they expect no third graders to be held back when all is said and done; in contrast, officials in the inner-ring Cleveland Heights–University Heights Schools won’t venture a number but have serious plans in place for those students who they know will need extra help to pass the summer test.

Last week was a big week for charter schools. A Presidential Proclamation designated it “National Charter Schools Week.” At the same time, the United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed (360–45) bipartisan legislation to strengthen the federal Charter Schools Program and prioritize the replication and expansion of quality charter schools. These actions reflect the growing bipartisan support enjoyed by charter schools as well as the increased focus on quality over quantity.

Ohio’s charter growth has mirrored that of the nation, although with some high-profile school closures in the Buckeye State, the bipartisan support has been a little less than forthcoming. While we are ardent charter supporters, we’ve been obliged to call out bad behavior and epic failures that could have been prevented.

But in the spirit of National Charter Schools Week, we opted to celebrate part of our own portfolio of charter schools across Ohio; in addition to being a gadfly, we also sponsor charter schools. These schools—laboratories of innovation and independence—are making an important difference for the communities they serve.

To name but three:

• KIPP: Columbus will open an incredible new campus next fall
• Sciotoville Elementary Academy reflects the community’s need for continuity and familiarity
• Village Preparatory School :: Woodland Hills Campus makes full use of the excellent Breakthrough Schools network in support of its students

We urge you to check out the whole series here.

Building upon kindred analyses in FY 2003 and 2007, this magnum opus from the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas examines charter funding across the land in fiscal 2011 and finds that per-pupil charter revenues fall drastically short of what their surrounding districts take in. We learn that U.S. charter schools, on average, received 28 percent less than comparable districts. Unfortunately for Ohio’s 100,000-plus charter students, the Buckeye State’s charter-funding disparity is almost as bad as the national average: 22 percent less than districts. Worse yet, that shortfall is considerably larger in Cleveland and Dayton (the two cities in Ohio where the researchers did a deep dive analysis) than the statewide average. Cleveland’s charter schools received 46 percent less than district schools, Dayton’s charters 40 percent. (The per-pupil revenue for Cleveland’s charters was $8,523 versus $15,784 for the district, and the per-pupil revenue for Dayton’s charters was $8,892 versus $14,732 for the district.) Given the long history of dreadful achievement by those two urban school systems, it’s shameful that the principal alternatives available to needy youngsters in those cities are so egregiously underfunded.

What’s the explanation? As in many states, Ohio charter schools do not have access to local revenue streams or facilities funding. (That dual problem continues, save for a few schools in Cleveland.) Although Ohio has changed its school-funding system since these data were gathered, the new formula produces similar revenue amounts for charter schools and would likely reveal similar disparities. In the end, the analysis gave Ohio, along with twenty other states, an ignominious F for its charter-funding laws and practices; Tennessee was the only jurisdiction to earn an A. Public charter schools—and the parents and students who choose them—deserve a funding approach that doesn’t treat them as second-class citizens.

SOURCE: Meagan Batdorff, et al., Charter School Funding: Inequality Expands (Fayetteville, AR: Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas, April 2014).