The Education Gadfly Weekly

Charter schools are quickly becoming a defining feature of Ohio’s public-education landscape, educating over 120,000 children statewide. Also known as “community schools” in Ohio, charter schools have several distinctive characteristics: They are schools of choice, they operate independently of traditional districts (and some state regulation), and they are held contractually accountable for their results by a charter school authorizer.

The “theory of action” behind charters is fairly simple. Empower parents with choice, give schools greater freedom, and hold schools accountable to a contract—and higher student achievement, more innovation, and stronger parental engagement will follow.

But how does theory stack up against reality? Are Ohio charters actually producing better results than their district counterparts? One way to answer this question is by analyzing student achievement data, and since 1999, Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) has been the nation’s foremost independent evaluator of charter school performance. 

Today, CREDO published a report on the academic performance of Ohio charter schools. It found that Buckeye charters, taken as a whole, continue to produce mediocre results. With state test scores in math and reading from the 2007–08 to 2012–13 school years used as the outcome measure, the study found that, on average, Ohio charter students are falling behind their counterparts in district schools. Students lost, on average, fourteen days of learning in reading and forty-three days in math over the course of the school year.

For those who have followed the Fordham Institute’s commentary and research over the years, this finding, sobering though it is, should come as no surprise. Furthermore, today’s overall finding is also strikingly similar to CREDO’s 2009 national analysis, which included Ohio results through the 2007–08 school year. At that time, CREDO estimated a forty-three day deficiency in math (the reading result for charters was not statistically different from districts). All this suggests that, in the aggregate, there’s been no academic progress for charters in recent years, despite energetic efforts to right Ohio’s charter school ship.

The overall news on charters is disappointing. But in the midst of the gloom, CREDO brought some good news and also raised several unsettling issues that researchers and policymakers must continue to grapple with. As we argue in the conclusion, CREDO’s findings confirm the need to rehabilitate the charter school sector in Ohio through policy changes.

The Good News

1.) Low-income black students benefit greatly by attending a charter school. Demographically speaking, one of the most at-risk subgroups is low-income black students. Taken together, Ohio charters educated over 46,000 low-income black students in 2013–14. Happily, CREDO found that low-income black students attending an Ohio charter are faring significantly better than their peers in traditional district schools. It estimated that low-income black students receive twenty-two additional days of learning in math and twenty-nine days in reading when attending a charter instead of a district school. A key objective in education reform is to improve the academic lives of our neediest students; charter schools in Ohio appear to be doing exactly that.

2.) Cleveland charters are pulling their weight. When CREDO sliced the results by city (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton), it became evident that Cleveland charters are outperforming the district. The study estimated, for example, that Cleveland charter students receive fourteen additional days of learning in reading and math, relative to their district peers. CREDO’s findings add to the evidence that Cleveland charters are helping to create a stronger public school sector in this long-suffering city and suggest that Cleveland’s education reforms should continue to include a strong charter school component.

3.) There’s something about middle schools. One of the striking findings was that middle school charters have a strong positive impact on student learning. (Charters with other grade configurations—elementary school, high school, or multilevel school—did not show positive impacts.) The research center found that middle school charters contributed a very impressive forty-three additional days of learning in math and thirty-six days in reading. Coincidentally (or not), two high-impact Columbus charters that Fordham authorizes originally opened as middle schools. This causes us to wonder whether smart upstart charter organizations would do best to start their schools in the middle grades and then expand either upwards (into high school) or downwards (into elementary grades), precisely the lesson KIPP and other charter high-fliers have learned over the years.

The Unsettling Issues

1.) Online charters. We know that e-schools are fast becoming a large part of Ohio’s charter school landscape. What is far murkier is how to properly measure their performance and how to hold them accountable for those results. To date, the available data has not been encouraging, and CREDO appeared to confirm this. It is plausible, though not directly confirmed by the report, that the strong negative result for both charter operators and “multilevel” schools was driven by the existence of statewide e-schools (see points 2 and 3 below). Either characteristic would likely apply to a large statewide e-school. Researchers need to crack open the black box of Ohio online charters even further and take a harder look: How long do their students typically attend an e-school, and does that affect their results? With whom should we compare online students’ achievement (and progress)? Does the impact of online schools differ depending on the length of attendance, geographic region, or any other student characteristics? All told, we are still left wondering whether the performance of online charters is truly an educational quality problem or related to other factors.

2.) Charter operators (for-profit and nonprofit). CREDO compared the charter-impact results of schools run by charter-management networks (for-profit or nonprofit operators) to standalone charters. The findings suggest that charter students attending a management-run school make significantly less academic growth than those attending a single-standing charter. (CREDO did not break down the results by for-profit and nonprofit company.) We know of a few outstanding management companies in Ohio, but it appears that, on balance, the Buckeye State still has too many management-run schools that are underperforming. In the coming days, Ohio policymakers will need to address accountability and governance issues related to charters that contract with an external operator.

3.) Charter high schools. CREDO found that charter high schools performed relatively poorly in comparison to districts and to other types of charters. Many of these charter high schools are probably dropout-recovery schools. So while not entirely surprising, it is especially worrisome that dropout-recovery schools are struggling to move the achievement needle for adolescents who need a serious academic boost. At the same time, we also know that Ohio has a few stellar high school charters. (For instance, consider the strong results on state report cards for high schools like Dayton Early College Academy, Arts & College Preparatory Academy, and Toledo School for the Arts.) Ohio leaders should examine why current charter policy encourages the growth of too many low-performing charter high schools while not allowing enough high-quality ones to flourish.

* * *

The Direction of Ohio Charter Policy

To improve the sector’s mediocre student achievement, Ohio policymakers must tether charter school policy to a seemingly simple principle: Replicate high-performing schools and close those that persistently underperform. But to date, Ohio has not created strong enough policies that ensure the replication of great charters or the closure of low-quality schools. The CREDO study released today reminds us that reshaping Ohio’s charter school law to align with this guiding principle is an urgent and necessary task. Too many low-performing charter schools throughout the Buckeye State continue to weigh down the sector—stunting support for the growth of high-quality charters.

Several policymakers are already examining ways to change the course of Ohio charter policy. This report should challenge them—and charter advocates—to lay the whole of Ohio charter school law on the table. It is time to uncover exactly where our charter policies tolerate lackluster academic performance. Wholesale charter school improvement is possible in Ohio; it has happened elsewhere. To see this through, Ohio needs a clear charter school statute, sound implementation of policy, strong funding arrangements, and a dose of public goodwill. Join us next week to hear more ideas on moving Ohio’s charter school policy in the right direction.

Sadly, a change recommended by the Ohio House Education Committee in House Bill 343 that would have eliminated the minimum teacher-salary schedule from state law was removed by the Rules Committee before the legislation reached the full house. The law entrenches the archaic principle that teacher pay should be based on seniority and degrees earned, and most districts’ collective-bargaining agreements still conform to the traditional salary schedule. For instance, each district in Montgomery County, except for one, had a seniority and degrees-earned salary schedule.[1]

There are several good reasons to do away with the traditional salary schedule.  These reasons include: (1) It wrongly assumes that longevity is related to productivity; (2) it falsely assumes that a masters’ degree correlates to productivity; (3) it does not reward teachers who are demonstrably more effective; and (4) it does not differentiate teacher pay based on the conditions of the wider labor market.

Given Ohio policymakers’ reticence to ditch the salary schedule, it’s worth discussing again (see here and here for prior commentary) why the rigid salary schedule shackles schools. In particular, I’d like to deal with the fourth reason mentioned above.

Most will agree that some teachers possess specialized knowledge that may be more valued in the external labor market (i.e., in non-teaching occupations). Consider Miss Jones, a high school math teacher: It is plausible that she could compete for a well-paying job at, say, Battelle. Assuming her school wants to retain her, it might have to pay her more than the typical teacher. But an inflexible salary schedule would constrain the school from paying more to keep Miss Jones in the classroom.

A similar thing could happen on the front-end of the hiring process. Consider Mr. Smith, a recent chemistry graduate who is weighing a science teaching position versus a job with a pharmaceutical firm. If the school was fully constrained by a rigid salary schedule, it could not adjust its salary offer to compete with the other offer.

Meanwhile, a new study published in Education Finance and Policy by Kristine West suggests that high school teachers, more broadly, should receive higher salaries than their primary school counterparts. The study found that, on average, high school teachers are significantly underpaid by approximately 7 to 14 percent compared to similar workers in other occupations. However, elementary and middle school teachers are estimated to be either slightly overpaid or comparably paid relative to their peers in other professions. (The study calculated wage rates that accounted for over-/under-reporting of hours worked across professions and teachers’ summer work hours.)

West makes the policy-relevant point:

I take this as evidence that policy makers should consider abandoning the single salary schedule that forces districts to pay all teachers the same regardless of the grade and subject they teach….[I]t is likely that schools face a surplus of elementary school teachers and a shortage of high-quality secondary school teachers. Raising secondary school teacher wages could help alleviate this problem.

In sum, schools need a human resources strategy that recognizes differences in teachers’ economic value relative to the external labor market. When this aspect of compensation is ignored—as happens under the step-and-lane salary schedule—schools, and especially high schools, may lose out on a certain pool of workers. Abandoning the antiquated salary schedule at the state level would free districts from the seniority and degrees-earned teacher pay mandate. Instead, policymakers should free districts, allowing them to design a human resources strategy that meets their local needs.

Cheers to Springfield’s Global Impact STEM Academy, an early college high school which draws students from nearly a dozen districts in its region. The school is prepping to move into a new, larger facility next school year, and is looking to recruit around one hundred new students to help fill it. This is another example of an education option that doesn’t have to divide a community. Instead, all districts with kids in the school can be proud of their students earning college credits while being challenged with a strong STEM curriculum.

Jeers to seemingly unquenchable bias in education reporting.  What do you call a charter school that manages to tick every box in the “wow” column (inner-city location, focus on special-needs students, strong arts program, dazzling tech component, on-target for enrollment, leader with solid school-district credibility, fiscally sound, sponsored by the state, managed by a local nonprofit)? If you’re not biased against charter schools, you call it awesome. If you are, then you call it a product of “divine intervention,” reducing to insignificance the hard work of the dozens of dedicated professionals who created and run it every day.

Cheers to Sciotoville Community School senior Taylor Appling, one of six Scioto County winners of the Honda/OSU Partnership Math Medal Award. Fordham sponsors SCS, and so we applaud Taylor, his teachers, and his school administrators.

Jeers to the persistence of an archaic school transportation model in Ohio. Amid reports of continuing bus driver shortages in Dayton City Schools (ongoing since the beginning of the school year), the voices raised in protest seem to be simply calling for a fix to the existing district-based system. Where are the voices calling for a new and different model of transportation? Perhaps if we used a transportation system to transport students and an education system to educate them, we might get better results on both fronts.

The charter school sector in the United States encompasses forty-two states and the District of Columbia, with 6,400 charter schools serving 2.5 million students. More than 1,000 authorizing entities oversee these schools, working under state laws that (ideally) balance the twin goals of school autonomy and accountability for results. This report, produced by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), examines the quality of those laws. NACSA has identified eight policies that facilitate the development of effective charters, including performance management and replication, default closures, and authorizer sanctions. States are awarded points based on the strength of each of these policies in their charter school laws. Since each state has a unique charter-authorizing landscape, NACSA has divided the states into three groups based on their similarities and then ranked states within each group. The groups are: 1) district authorizing states, 2) states with many authorizers, and 3) states with few authorizers. Ohio—with its 70 authorizers—was placed in group two along with four other states (Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, and Michigan). NACSA awarded Ohio a score of 18/27, enough to tie for third in its group (along with Missouri). While Ohio earned top marks for its default closure policies and its (relatively new) authorizer sanctions, it received zero points for its charter-renewal standards. More specifically, current law allows “reasonable progress” to be sufficient evidence for an authorizer to renew a charter. This low standard is particularly worrisome given Ohio charter schools’ “documented history of poor performance.” The report also notes that while several reforms have been put into place by the Ohio legislature, many have been difficult to implement. In fact, some efforts to hold schools accountable have been flat-out circumvented: Several schools slated for default closure have attempted to “sponsor hop,” or reopen under a different authorizer. NACSA recommends that Ohio continue to aggressively implement accountability policies for both schools and authorizers in order to improve the quality of charter schools.

Source: “On The Road to Better Accountability: An Analysis of State Charter School Policies.” National Association of Charter School Authorizers, (December 2014). 

The logic of using school choice to drive educational quality assumes that choosers will make rational decisions based on complete information and that market forces will do the rest. Isn’t it pretty to think so? Yet “people are flawed as information consumers and decision makers,” notes Tulane University’s Jon Valant in this thought-provoking report from AEI. Most of us, he notes, are “boundedly rational.” Our decisions make sense, but they’re a function of the time we have to spend evaluating our options, and our own cognitive capacity to process the information at hand. Thus, while many proponents see school choice as an intrinsic good arising from values such as freedom and parental control, there are limits to just how much change in the realms of education quality and achievement is actually brought about by choice per se. Valent’s report shows why: Families consider fewer schools than are available (and sometimes only one), typically turning to friends, neighbors and family members “whose insights often come without the school chooser having to search for them.” Providing more school options—and more information about those options—may make little sense when parents remain unaware of the full range of available choices or lack the time and resources to evaluate them. Simply making the data user-friendly isn’t necessarily the answer, either. The much-pilloried school report cards that reduce a school to a simple (or simplistic) A–F grade have measurable influences on the decisions parents make. Yet Valant also shows that narrative comments on those report cards are “stunningly influential” in shaping perceptions of a school—no surprise to anyone who reads reviews on Yelp. Plus, parents may choose on the basis of characteristics that have nothing to do with a school’s academic performance, frustrating those who assume that good academic performance is enough to drive demand—and that demand will boost academic performance. “Successfully informing the public is not easy,” Valant observes, considerably understating the case. He has no choice but to conclude with a call to improve the ways that we measure and report school performance, including goals beyond academic achievement, and for greater attention to how those with choices utilize the information available to them. Perhaps the clearest advice comes from AEI’s Andrew Kelly, who notes in the report’s foreword that “it is time for reformers and policymakers to pay as much attention to the demand side of school choice as they have to the supply of good schools.”

SOURCE: Jon Valant, "Better data, better decisions: Informing school choosers to improve education markets," American Enterprise Institute (November 2014).