The Education Gadfly Weekly

America’s great recession and its lingering effects have severely pressured local, state, and federal budgets. Declining tax revenues, in conjunction with increasing public expenditure on health care and pensions, has produced a wicked brew for government finances. In recent months we have witnessed the damage wrought by governments in Europe that have spent more money than they have, and we are seeing similar problems in America at the federal, state and city level.  

In the Buckeye State, for example, state government rang in the 2011 New Year with a grand total of 89 cents in its rainy day fund. (Though improving conditions and concerted efforts to trim expenditures have enabled Ohio to add nearly $500 million to this savings fund.) Ohio’s school districts, which heavily rely on state government funds and local taxes, have also felt the budget crunch. But, Ohio is actually in better shape than a lot of other states.

Former New York lieutenant governor Richard Ravitch and former Federal Reserve Board chair Paul Volker formed the State Budget Crisis Task Force to study and report on state government finances. The task force recently released a report that studied six states’ budgets—California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Virginia. The study finds that state Medicaid spending—a health care program for low-income residents—now exceeds K-12 education spending as a percentage of states’ budget.Figure 1 from their report shows the upward trend in Medicaid versus the downward trend in education spending over the past five years:

K-12 education funding is being squeezed big-time as health care spending for the elderly, the poor and the disabled accelerates at rates far exceeding inflation. School districts should expect less and less funding through state sources. Consequently, districts will have to stretch their school budgets in ways perhaps unimagined. Additionally, as a big-picture issue for the general public, Medicaid’s crowding out of K-12 education underlies a larger, long-term question ripe for debate: How do we balance the health care needs of our aging population with the educational needs of our children who ultimately have to pay these bills?

This somber report on the threats facing state budgets should be required reading for every state officials who daily grapples with tougher and tougher choices, and for all voters and taxpayers who furnish their hard-earned treasure to finance these expenditures.   

Report of the State Budget Crisis Task Force
Richard Ravitch and Paul Volker, Chairs
State Budget Crisis Task Force
July 2012

The Task Force on Charter School Quality and Accountability issued their Renewing the Compact report in 2005. This seminal charter school report set forth goals around five key areas:

• Achievement: Focus resolutely on student achievement
• Talent: Draw talented individuals to the classroom and leadership positions
• Funding: Gain equitable funding for charter schools
• Support: Increase support for the charter school community
• Scale: Build up successful schools and close those that fail

A new report from the North-Carolina based Public Impact evaluates the progress that the nation’s charter school sector has made over the last seven years in regards to meeting the goals above. It also provides recommendations for improvements moving forward. Public Impact interviewed a variety of key stakeholders including education leaders, charter school representatives, and think tanks.

The first question asked of the interviewees looked at positive developments or trends over the past several years. Major successes over the last seven years include:

• Proof points of quality: Charter schools around the country demonstrate that underserved students can achieve at high levels.
• Increased recognition of quality and accountability:  Policymakers and authorizers have increased their focus on quality

Along with recent successes, numerous challenges still remain, including the following:

• Inadequate supply of new high-quality schools: Not enough strong charter founders exist to provide better education options for children
• Persistence of too many chronically low-performing schools: While progress has been made with regards to quality, authorizers still fail to close low-performing schools too often.
• Slow growth of the best charter schools: High-performing CMOs are not expanding quickly enough to meet demand.

The charter sector has come a long way and its successes are worth celebrating, yet as the report demonstrates multiple challenges still remain. In order for the charter school sector to reach its full potential the leaders must work together and take on the challenges mentioned above to provide all students an excellent education. Fortunately, Public Impact offers some thoughtful recommendations for moving forward and to read these for yourself check out their new report.

Fulfilling the Compact: Building a Breakthrough, Results- Driven Public Charter School Sector
Prepared for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools by Public Impact
June 2012

Ohio charters are gaining an international reputation—but not for the best of reasons. In recent articles, The Economist chides Ohio charters for having “done badly” and operating without oversight in a “Wild West” environment. And these remarks are written in articles that praise charters schools more generally.

With every financial scandal and every school closure due to academic failure, Ohio’s charters face greater and greater scrutiny.

With a prominent global publication taking our charter schools to task, readers around the world—from New York City to London to Tokyo—now know what many of us locally know too well. Ohio’s charter sector has underperformed in comparison to other states. Despite some exceptional schools (e.g., DECA in Dayton, Constellation Schools and Breakthrough in Cleveland, KIPP and Columbus Collegiate Academy in Columbus), charters in Ohio—as a group—have far too often disappointed students and parents who placed their hopes in these schools. With every financial scandal and every school closure due to academic failure, Ohio’s charters face greater and greater scrutiny.

When it comes to student performance in charters other states do it better. We’ve argued in a 2006 report to lawmakers, in a 2010 book, in numerous op-eds, and in public testimony to lawmakers that Ohio’s charter sector needs reform through smarter accountability, consolidating the state’s 80-plus authorizers, helping high-quality models in Ohio expand what they do, and actively recruiting talent and successful school models to the Buckeye State. We’ve urged lawmakers to pass legislation that would close failing charters quickly and raise the standards for who can open schools in the first place. We’ve partnered with community leaders in Dayton, Columbus, and Sciotoville to open and run quality charter schools, but we readily admit there is more we can do as an authorizer and supporter of charter schools. Too many of our schools over the years have also struggled to deliver the student performance kids need for success in today’s economy (see Terry’s piece above).

The Economist’s oblique shot should be a wake-up call for Ohio’s charter schools. Charters are working better for students in other parts of the country, as The Economist reports. The problem in Ohio, however, isn’t with the charter school model itself; rather, it’s often the talent and sometimes the integrity of the people running the schools, the strength of the governing boards and authorizers overseeing the schools, and too-little appreciation by lawmakers that accountability for performance is just as important as choice itself.

Here’s to a brighter future for Ohio charters—and we at Fordham are committed to it. Days when Ohio isn’t cited internationally as the dregs of America’s charter schools. Days when all charters have quality minded governing boards and authorizers. Days when sensible oversight and accountability for performance separate the charter chaff from the wheat. And days when charter students irrefutably succeed – in their classrooms, in their communities, and in life.

As reported above, Ohio charter schools received a bad rap in recent articles by The Economist. After singing the praises of charters in some of America’s largest cities, The Economist went on to disparage Ohio’s charters, stating that they “have done badly.” And, as a group they have if academic performance is what matters.

Below I take a slice of data from Cleveland to look at the performance of its charter schools relative to two comparison groups. First, I compare how Cleveland’s charters stack up against Cleveland Municipal School District (the city’s traditional public school). Second, I compare Cleveland's charters against a broader set of public districts--all districts in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland Municipal, poorer inner-ring suburban districts, and some affluent suburban districts.

I use the fourth grade math proficiency rate—essentially, the proportion of students who “pass” Ohio’s annual standardized test in a given grade and subject—for the 2010-11 school year. And by using what’s called a “z-score” in statistics, I calculate how far each school's proficiency rate is above or below the average proficiency (pass) rate.[1] A school with a positive score has an above-average proficiency rate; vice-versa, a school with a negative score has a below-average rate.

Figure 1 shows how charters compare against their district peers. Each bar indicates a school: charters are shown in red and district schools in grey. The vertical axis indicates schools’ z-scores—again, indicating how far their proficiency rate is from the group average proficiency rate.

Put the champagne on ice—performing on par with Cleveland should be no cause for celebration for charters or its students.

On the left chart (figure 1A), Cleveland charters are pretty evenly distributed above and below the average. Conclusion: Cleveland’s charters do just about the same as their district peers. So far so good; but remember, Cleveland Municipal is one of Ohio’s lowest-performing public school districts and even consistently ranks at the bottom of big urban district performance in the country. For now, put the champagne on ice—performing on par with Cleveland should be no cause for celebration for charters or its students.

When I expand the geographic scope to all Cuyahoga County (figure 1B), charters, as a group, fall below the average line and fewer remain above the average line. Note the greater density of the red lines below zero. The rise in the average proficiency rate when higher-performing suburban schools are included causes this downward shift. In other words, when the standard gets higher, charter students fall further behind. (Note, though, that some Cleveland charters compare well with the best schools in Cuyahoga County. But these remain the “Needles in the Haystack.”)

Figure 1: Fourth grade math proficiency rates, scaled to the average rate, 2010-11. (A) Cleveland charters versus Cleveland Municipal School District schools. (B) Cleveland charters versus Cuyahoga County public school districts, inclusive of Cleveland Municipal. Data source: Author’s calculations based on Ohio Department of Education data.

Have Cleveland’s charters “done badly?” Depends on your standard. To their credit, the Mayor of Cleveland and the CEO of the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) have said that they need to raise the achievement of students in the district big-time. They have crafted a plan to do just that. Cleveland’s charters as a group are no better than their peers in CMSD. If the goal is high quality education for all kids—education at least comparable to what kids in the suburbs are receiving—then Cleveland’s charter sector has as much work to do as does CMSD.

[1] The z-score calculation is (proficiency rate of building x – average proficiency rate) ÷ standard deviation. Z-scores are in standard deviation units and assume a normal distribution (bell-shaped curve). The shape of the curve is determined by the standard deviation.

The State Board of Education, prompted by a requirement in House Bill 153 in 2011, developed a new framework for teacher evaluations, to be implemented by all districts starting with the 2013-14 school year. The Marietta Times reported that some school districts in the Buckeye State will be piloting new systems this upcoming school year.

Frontier Local, Marietta City, and Wolf Creek districts will all be testing their new evaluations systems this year, and school officials are complaining about a number of implementation challenges. HB 153 requires both principal and teacher evaluations. For the latter, at least 50 percent of a teacher’s rating must be dependent on student academic growth. The process also includes at least two classroom observations and a teacher/evaluator conference before and after each. Superintendents have raised concerns about the estimated the time commitment these rigorous evaluations are likely to require.

Other Ohio districts can learn from these early adopters and come up with better and more efficient ways to do rigorous evaluations in 2013-14. For districts struggling with tight budgets, it will take strategic planning to conduct these evaluations well. However, contract language can have a significant impact on how time consuming evaluations become – because-- all teachers may not have to be evaluated every year and the bill does not specify who must conduct evaluations. In Wolf Creek, the superintendent is brainstorming ways to lessen the burden on principals and considering outside support. However, even this has its drawbacks. Wolf Creek stressed the importance of finding someone who understands the district’s philosophy and has done more than simply “meet the state requirements for an evaluator.” Since every district is a little different (and with Ohio having more than 600 districts and roughly 350 charter schools), it is not hard to understand why being familiar with their particular nuances is an advantage.

Nuances or none, all Ohio schools will soon move towards teacher evaluations. Where the pilot may work well in some districts, it may not be a good fit in others. Wolf Creek, for example, claims to not have the problem the new system primarily aims to fix (poor teachers staying in the classroom). Some may find the time devoted to evaluations superfluous. Some may run into staffing complications. Others may dread additional costs associated with measuring the 50 percent student growth component in non-tested subjects. In any case, tough decisions must be made and stakeholders will definitely be keeping a close watch on how these pilot districts fare in the upcoming school year.

America’s great recession and its lingering effects have severely pressured local, state, and federal budgets. Declining tax revenues, in conjunction with increasing public expenditure on health care and pensions, has produced a wicked brew for government finances. In recent months we have witnessed the damage wrought by governments in Europe that have spent more money than they have, and we are seeing similar problems in America at the federal, state and city level.  

In the Buckeye State, for example, state government rang in the 2011 New Year with a grand total of 89 cents in its rainy day fund. (Though improving conditions and concerted efforts to trim expenditures have enabled Ohio to add nearly $500 million to this savings fund.) Ohio’s school districts, which heavily rely on state government funds and local taxes, have also felt the budget crunch. But, Ohio is actually in better shape than a lot of other states.

Former New York lieutenant governor Richard Ravitch and former Federal Reserve Board chair Paul Volker formed the State Budget Crisis Task Force to study and report on state government finances. The task force recently released a report that studied six states’ budgets—California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Virginia. The study finds that state Medicaid spending—a health care program for low-income residents—now exceeds K-12 education spending as a percentage of states’ budget.Figure 1 from their report shows the upward trend in Medicaid versus the downward trend in education spending over the past five years:

K-12 education funding is being squeezed big-time as health care spending for the elderly, the poor and the disabled accelerates at rates far exceeding inflation. School districts should expect less and less funding through state sources. Consequently, districts will have to stretch their school budgets in ways perhaps unimagined. Additionally, as a big-picture issue for the general public, Medicaid’s crowding out of K-12 education underlies a larger, long-term question ripe for debate: How do we balance the health care needs of our aging population with the educational needs of our children who ultimately have to pay these bills?

This somber report on the threats facing state budgets should be required reading for every state officials who daily grapples with tougher and tougher choices, and for all voters and taxpayers who furnish their hard-earned treasure to finance these expenditures.   

Report of the State Budget Crisis Task Force
Richard Ravitch and Paul Volker, Chairs
State Budget Crisis Task Force
July 2012

The Task Force on Charter School Quality and Accountability issued their Renewing the Compact report in 2005. This seminal charter school report set forth goals around five key areas:

• Achievement: Focus resolutely on student achievement
• Talent: Draw talented individuals to the classroom and leadership positions
• Funding: Gain equitable funding for charter schools
• Support: Increase support for the charter school community
• Scale: Build up successful schools and close those that fail

A new report from the North-Carolina based Public Impact evaluates the progress that the nation’s charter school sector has made over the last seven years in regards to meeting the goals above. It also provides recommendations for improvements moving forward. Public Impact interviewed a variety of key stakeholders including education leaders, charter school representatives, and think tanks.

The first question asked of the interviewees looked at positive developments or trends over the past several years. Major successes over the last seven years include:

• Proof points of quality: Charter schools around the country demonstrate that underserved students can achieve at high levels.
• Increased recognition of quality and accountability:  Policymakers and authorizers have increased their focus on quality

Along with recent successes, numerous challenges still remain, including the following:

• Inadequate supply of new high-quality schools: Not enough strong charter founders exist to provide better education options for children
• Persistence of too many chronically low-performing schools: While progress has been made with regards to quality, authorizers still fail to close low-performing schools too often.
• Slow growth of the best charter schools: High-performing CMOs are not expanding quickly enough to meet demand.

The charter sector has come a long way and its successes are worth celebrating, yet as the report demonstrates multiple challenges still remain. In order for the charter school sector to reach its full potential the leaders must work together and take on the challenges mentioned above to provide all students an excellent education. Fortunately, Public Impact offers some thoughtful recommendations for moving forward and to read these for yourself check out their new report.

Fulfilling the Compact: Building a Breakthrough, Results- Driven Public Charter School Sector
Prepared for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools by Public Impact
June 2012