I admit. I was wrong.
The Ohio House will begin what is promised to be a series of special hearings on education funding today. I will attend and report back what I see.
When the House announced earlier this year that they would be tackling this issue a few months before everyone in the House was up for election, I was exceedingly skeptical. It takes courage to go around the state talking about education funding after making massive cuts to education in the last budget. So I though these would never happen. While surprised, I'm thrilled they are happening. Chairman Ron Amstutz should be commended for following through on these initial hearings. I always worked well with him in the House (he gave my farewell speech), and I know he's sincere about wanting to fix this problem. So I'm glad his sincerity won out over crass political cynicism. At least for the moment.
Now, I don't know what the hearings will be like. Will they be substantive? Will they allow anyone who wishes to speak? Will they be hijacked by one interest group or another? Will they serve an agenda (like justifying giving everyone $6,000 and telling them they can attend any school they want), or support the Founding Fathers' vision (including Thomas Jefferson) of public education being the heart of every Ohio community, which Alexis de Tocqueville described in Democracy in America thusly: "the originality of American civilization was most clearly apparent in the provisions made for public education"?
What I hope they become is a serious inquiry into how to properly fund our schools (including traditionals, charters and eschools), using the best, peer-reviewed research available. Since Gov. Kasich eliminated the Evidence-Based Model in the last budget (as well as about $2 billion in funding), Ohio remains the only state in the country without a funding model. That cannot continue for another two years.
The new model should help kids succeed, not simply spend the same pot of money differently. I would hope some property tax relief could result, for continuing to rely more and more on property taxes to fund schools is untenable. Finally, I hope the new system has even more evidence that it will improve student success than the EBM did.
That's what our kids deserve.
Share it
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Study: Previous School Funding System gets an A
In the Dispatch this morning, it was reported that the Education Law Center at Rutgers gave Ohio's school funding system a pretty good grade. Unfortunately, the highest grades it received were while the Evidence Based Model of school funding was in place. The current administration eliminated that model this year, so now Ohio has no distribution formula.
The study looked at 2009 -- the year the EBM was put in place.
The report classifies Ohio's system then this way:
Finally, it would have been fair for the Dispatch to have mentioned the EBM in today's story. I'm not surprised it didn't, but the implication the story gave that Ohio's current system, which has no distribution formula, would receive a similar A grade for distributive fairness misinforms the public on the eve of one of the more important landmarks in Ohio's long, sordid school funding history.
And that's unfortunate.
The study looked at 2009 -- the year the EBM was put in place.
The report classifies Ohio's system then this way:
"Only 17 states have progressive funding systems, providing greater funding to high-poverty districts than to low-poverty districts. This is a small increase over the 14 progressive states in 2008. The most progressive funding systems are in Utah, New Jersey and Ohio."As the Ohio House, to their credit, starts examining what a new system should look like, one thing they should do is look at the components of previous systems that did work, and incorporate them into the new system. The EBM was not perfect. But it did earn Ohio accolades for being innovative, creative and fair.
Finally, it would have been fair for the Dispatch to have mentioned the EBM in today's story. I'm not surprised it didn't, but the implication the story gave that Ohio's current system, which has no distribution formula, would receive a similar A grade for distributive fairness misinforms the public on the eve of one of the more important landmarks in Ohio's long, sordid school funding history.
And that's unfortunate.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
IRS looking at For-Profit Charters
I came across an interesting post at a law firm's website recently that discussed potential IRS problems for Charter Schools that have for-profit entities (like K-12, Inc. or White Hat Management) running them.
Charters in Ohio have to be non-profits. However, they can contract with for-profit entities that for all intents and purposes run them. For example, White Hat Management receives 97% of the state money sent to Charters that it operates. However, the State of Ohio does not have access to any of the records that would detail how that money was spent by White Hat on the Charter's behalf.
This relationship has long been a cause for concern among some in Ohio who see this relationship as simply a dodge for White Hat and other for profits to avoid the scrutiny their non-profit counterparts take in their place. And even those non-profits haven't been able to gain access to the for-profits' records, which has been the subject of the recent White Hat lawsuit in Franklin County.
The law firm gives this assessment:
Charters in Ohio have to be non-profits. However, they can contract with for-profit entities that for all intents and purposes run them. For example, White Hat Management receives 97% of the state money sent to Charters that it operates. However, the State of Ohio does not have access to any of the records that would detail how that money was spent by White Hat on the Charter's behalf.
This relationship has long been a cause for concern among some in Ohio who see this relationship as simply a dodge for White Hat and other for profits to avoid the scrutiny their non-profit counterparts take in their place. And even those non-profits haven't been able to gain access to the for-profits' records, which has been the subject of the recent White Hat lawsuit in Franklin County.
The law firm gives this assessment:
Charter schools subject to management agreements that are already exempt should be prepared to closely review their management agreements with their counsel to confirm that the management agreement does not violate private inurement and private benefit restrictions applicable to all charitable organizations.What will the impact be of this increased scrutiny? Stay tuned ...
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Brennan Allies Dodge Bullet in Cleveland
The answer to why Ohio Charter School Godfather David Brennan and his allies finally signed off on the Transformation Alliance -- the public-private Cleveland partnership that the Cleveland education plan originally called to have sign off authority on new Charter Schools in the district -- has been crystallized. The two entities that sponsor many of his Charter Schools will never be under scrutiny by the Alliance.
According to the Plain Dealer, neither the politically connected Ohio Council for Community Schools, nor the Lucas County ESC will ever be examined by the Alliance because they have lifetime licenses from the state that never need renewal -- the only time the new language lets the community scrutinize Charter sponsors.
The schools those two sponsors run received $371 million of the $721 million Ohio taxpayers sent to Charter Schools last year. Sponsors typically get 3% of that revenue, which would make the sponsors' haul a little more than $11 million.
Over half the money spent on Charters in this state were spent on schools sponsored by these two groups. In addition, they "educate" 51,438 children, about half of all Charter students, for a per pupil cost of $7,212 -- more than twice as much as the state spends per pupil on children in the traditional public schools. Yet the Cleveland Plan deal exempts these two Charter School sponsors -- the state's largest (Lucas) and third largest (OCCS) -- from local scrutiny over their performance.
Only 6 of the Ohio Council for Community Schools' Charters rate Effective (B) or better on the State Report Card. OCCS' former executive director was Allison Perz, the daughter of Sally Perz -- the Toledo State Rep. who pushed through the Charter School bill in 1998. Allison Perz made $105,000 a year at one point as OCCS' Executive Director.
Only 18 of the Lucas County ESC's 67 Charters rate Effective or better. Lucas County is where new political donor William Lager was able to land after his ECOT was rejected by the state. The state rarely rejected Charter School applications then.
Again, lawmakers and others have complained bitterly about how easy it is for schools to be rated A or A+, which is part of the reason they want a tougher Report Card System. Yet no one ever asks, "If it's so easy to get As and A+s, why don't more Charters get them?"
These two sponsors include some of the most notorious Charter Schools in the state. Lucas County sponsors the ECOT (which takes more Cleveland kids than any other Charter School) and the Buckeye Online School of Success. Both e-schools have graduation rates that are dwarfed by nearly every traditional public school district.
OCCS sponsors several of the disastrous, Brennan-run Life Skills Centers (whose collective graduation rate is 10.8%) and the K-12, Inc.-run Ohio Virtual Academy, with its 51:1 student-teacher ratio.
These groups also sponsor some highly rated schools, like Intergenerational School in Cleveland and Menlo Park Academy. However, they will not receive scrutiny over the laggards in their ranks because the Charter School Lobby once again sacrificed the little fish to save the big fish. When will the little fish rise up, by the way?
Again, this is not an indictment of Charter Schools. It is an indictment of how these have been operated in Ohio since their inception -- not as small incubators of innovation, but as big funding streams for large political contributors. This isn't how it works everywhere else in the country.
In order to determine how effective Charter Schools can be in helping to improve education, we must first drum out the politics and clean up the system. While not confident that will happen anytime soon, I do hope that the machinations we've seen over the last year, from the Ohio House letting Brennan's right-hand man to write Charter School accountability laws, to letting the big fish escape scrutiny whenever they can, will lead to an outrage that demands a better funding and accountability system.
Remember that because of the way Charters are funded, kids in traditional public schools get 6.5% less from the state than the state says they need to be adequately educated simply because Charters exist.
Regardless of what side you're on with Charter Schools, the way they're operating in Ohio isn't working, least of all for kids.
According to the Plain Dealer, neither the politically connected Ohio Council for Community Schools, nor the Lucas County ESC will ever be examined by the Alliance because they have lifetime licenses from the state that never need renewal -- the only time the new language lets the community scrutinize Charter sponsors.
The schools those two sponsors run received $371 million of the $721 million Ohio taxpayers sent to Charter Schools last year. Sponsors typically get 3% of that revenue, which would make the sponsors' haul a little more than $11 million.
Over half the money spent on Charters in this state were spent on schools sponsored by these two groups. In addition, they "educate" 51,438 children, about half of all Charter students, for a per pupil cost of $7,212 -- more than twice as much as the state spends per pupil on children in the traditional public schools. Yet the Cleveland Plan deal exempts these two Charter School sponsors -- the state's largest (Lucas) and third largest (OCCS) -- from local scrutiny over their performance.
Only 6 of the Ohio Council for Community Schools' Charters rate Effective (B) or better on the State Report Card. OCCS' former executive director was Allison Perz, the daughter of Sally Perz -- the Toledo State Rep. who pushed through the Charter School bill in 1998. Allison Perz made $105,000 a year at one point as OCCS' Executive Director.
Only 18 of the Lucas County ESC's 67 Charters rate Effective or better. Lucas County is where new political donor William Lager was able to land after his ECOT was rejected by the state. The state rarely rejected Charter School applications then.
Again, lawmakers and others have complained bitterly about how easy it is for schools to be rated A or A+, which is part of the reason they want a tougher Report Card System. Yet no one ever asks, "If it's so easy to get As and A+s, why don't more Charters get them?"
These two sponsors include some of the most notorious Charter Schools in the state. Lucas County sponsors the ECOT (which takes more Cleveland kids than any other Charter School) and the Buckeye Online School of Success. Both e-schools have graduation rates that are dwarfed by nearly every traditional public school district.
OCCS sponsors several of the disastrous, Brennan-run Life Skills Centers (whose collective graduation rate is 10.8%) and the K-12, Inc.-run Ohio Virtual Academy, with its 51:1 student-teacher ratio.
These groups also sponsor some highly rated schools, like Intergenerational School in Cleveland and Menlo Park Academy. However, they will not receive scrutiny over the laggards in their ranks because the Charter School Lobby once again sacrificed the little fish to save the big fish. When will the little fish rise up, by the way?
Again, this is not an indictment of Charter Schools. It is an indictment of how these have been operated in Ohio since their inception -- not as small incubators of innovation, but as big funding streams for large political contributors. This isn't how it works everywhere else in the country.
In order to determine how effective Charter Schools can be in helping to improve education, we must first drum out the politics and clean up the system. While not confident that will happen anytime soon, I do hope that the machinations we've seen over the last year, from the Ohio House letting Brennan's right-hand man to write Charter School accountability laws, to letting the big fish escape scrutiny whenever they can, will lead to an outrage that demands a better funding and accountability system.
Remember that because of the way Charters are funded, kids in traditional public schools get 6.5% less from the state than the state says they need to be adequately educated simply because Charters exist.
Regardless of what side you're on with Charter Schools, the way they're operating in Ohio isn't working, least of all for kids.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
More Ohio Charter War Collateral Damage
Today's Columbus Dispatch held a story about a situation that frankly never should have come up in the first place.
A Charter School in Cincinnati wanted to buy an old building that was owned by CPS. However, a deed restriction CPS put in there didn't allow the district to sell to a Charter School.
Yet the operators of Theodore Roosevelt Public Community School bought it for $30,000 and started to run the school out of it. CPS sued in 2009 to block the sale, based on the deed restriction. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the Charter's right to buy the building based on a state law giving Charters first crack at old school buildings.
This situation epitomizes why the Charter School Wars are harmful. First of all, it makes perfect sense for Charters to buy old school buildings that districts no longer need. One of the major issues in other states (like New York) is the lack of space Charters have.
However, this seemingly common sense marriage makes zero sense when the existence of Charter Schools put the local district in financial jeopardy. In Ohio, the way Charter Schools are funded means that every kid not in a Charter receives about 6.5% less state revenue than they otherwise would.
In the Theodore Roosevelt situation, according to the April 27 state payment forms, it receives $1,765,386.74 for the 218.13 kids it educates. That means the state pays Theodore Roosevelt $8,093.28 per pupil. After Charters like Theodore Roosevelt receive their state money, CPS is left with $2,445 per pupil from the state.
When you add the financial issues to the fact that Theodore Roosevelt is in Academic Emergency (an F) on the state report card, has a Performance Index Score of 57.2 (which rates worse than all but about 45 of Ohio's 3,625 school buildings) and has neither met Adequate Yearly Progress nor its Value Added benchmarks, you begin to understand CPS' reluctance to have Theodore Roosevelt taking its kids.
The person who started Theodore Roosevelt, Roger Connors, came from Riverside Academy, which is one of the Charters that is operated by White Hat Management -- the outfit started by Ohio's Charter School Godfather David Brennan.
Let me ask one question: would the Ohio Supreme Court be hearing this case after a three-year court battle if the Charter School funding scheme in Ohio wasn't so off kilter? Or the state had higher standards for Charter School performance? Or the goal of Charter Schools was to help, not compete with local school districts? Or the creation of Charter Schools hadn't been born out of hyper-partisan rhetoric and action?
Think about it: A school district has a building it won't use anymore. A Charter School wants to come in and operate a school there. It should be a foregone conclusion, if there was a true sense of cooperation between the two systems, that this would happen.
Instead, districts try to keep out Charters and Charters try to figure out how to wiggle their way into districts.
The outcome of the Cincinnati case isn't what really concerns me. What troubles me to no end is that 13 years into the Charter School experiment in Ohio we're having three-year court battles over whether a Charter School can operate in a school building a district no longer wants.
There have been some fences mended on this issue over the last few years, but the Cincinnati case proves one thing to me: thanks to the way Columbus politicians have hamfisted this issue for years, there is a long, long, long, long way to go before Charters and Traditional Public Schools can trust one another or work together collaboratively.
And that is truly unfortunate for the children of this state.
A Charter School in Cincinnati wanted to buy an old building that was owned by CPS. However, a deed restriction CPS put in there didn't allow the district to sell to a Charter School.
Yet the operators of Theodore Roosevelt Public Community School bought it for $30,000 and started to run the school out of it. CPS sued in 2009 to block the sale, based on the deed restriction. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the Charter's right to buy the building based on a state law giving Charters first crack at old school buildings.
This situation epitomizes why the Charter School Wars are harmful. First of all, it makes perfect sense for Charters to buy old school buildings that districts no longer need. One of the major issues in other states (like New York) is the lack of space Charters have.
However, this seemingly common sense marriage makes zero sense when the existence of Charter Schools put the local district in financial jeopardy. In Ohio, the way Charter Schools are funded means that every kid not in a Charter receives about 6.5% less state revenue than they otherwise would.
In the Theodore Roosevelt situation, according to the April 27 state payment forms, it receives $1,765,386.74 for the 218.13 kids it educates. That means the state pays Theodore Roosevelt $8,093.28 per pupil. After Charters like Theodore Roosevelt receive their state money, CPS is left with $2,445 per pupil from the state.
When you add the financial issues to the fact that Theodore Roosevelt is in Academic Emergency (an F) on the state report card, has a Performance Index Score of 57.2 (which rates worse than all but about 45 of Ohio's 3,625 school buildings) and has neither met Adequate Yearly Progress nor its Value Added benchmarks, you begin to understand CPS' reluctance to have Theodore Roosevelt taking its kids.
The person who started Theodore Roosevelt, Roger Connors, came from Riverside Academy, which is one of the Charters that is operated by White Hat Management -- the outfit started by Ohio's Charter School Godfather David Brennan.
Let me ask one question: would the Ohio Supreme Court be hearing this case after a three-year court battle if the Charter School funding scheme in Ohio wasn't so off kilter? Or the state had higher standards for Charter School performance? Or the goal of Charter Schools was to help, not compete with local school districts? Or the creation of Charter Schools hadn't been born out of hyper-partisan rhetoric and action?
Think about it: A school district has a building it won't use anymore. A Charter School wants to come in and operate a school there. It should be a foregone conclusion, if there was a true sense of cooperation between the two systems, that this would happen.
Instead, districts try to keep out Charters and Charters try to figure out how to wiggle their way into districts.
The outcome of the Cincinnati case isn't what really concerns me. What troubles me to no end is that 13 years into the Charter School experiment in Ohio we're having three-year court battles over whether a Charter School can operate in a school building a district no longer wants.
There have been some fences mended on this issue over the last few years, but the Cincinnati case proves one thing to me: thanks to the way Columbus politicians have hamfisted this issue for years, there is a long, long, long, long way to go before Charters and Traditional Public Schools can trust one another or work together collaboratively.
And that is truly unfortunate for the children of this state.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
More Cleveland Charter Quirks
As I talked about on a few occasions recently, the powerful Charter School Lobby effectively neutered a potentially powerful accountability provision in the Cleveland Plan.
The Transformation Alliance is a public-private collaboration that the originators of the Cleveland Plan wanted to have sign off authority over Charter Schools in Cleveland and hold Sponsors to greater account for their schools. The idea was to have the community have a greater say over Charter Schools. For after all, the state does call them "Community Schools."
However, the new version of the Cleveland Plan gives the Ohio Department of Education the sign off authority, turning the Alliance into a mere recommendation body.
One wrinkle that was particularly interesting to me was the one that said Charter Sponsors will only be subject to Alliance review once their sponsorship agreements were up for renewal. Couple that with the fact that the new version of the bill sunsets the Alliance after five years, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if a Charter Sponsor isn't up for renewal before five years (which is the duration of many contracts), then the Alliance will have nothing to say.
In addition, Sponsors only have to come before the Alliance once. Ever.
So I decided to look to see what Charter Schools are operated in Cleveland and when their contracts are up. What I found was pretty interesting. And thanks to ODE for providing me the spreadsheet here.
Two schools -- Ohio Connections Academy, Inc. and Horizon Science Academy's Dennison Middle School -- aren't up for renewal until 2018, meaning they escape scrutiny all together.
Of the 63 Charter Schools currently operating in Cleveland, 17 have their contracts up June 30. That means if they renew for five years, they will never come before the Alliance. Among the 13 of those 17 Charters that have been rated by the state, 8 rate D or F on the state report card, 2 rate a C, and there's two Bs and an A. The average Performance Index Score of these schools is 74, which is about a point below the Cleveland District average. Remove the top score and the average drops to 70 -- significantly lower than Cleveland's average.
Another 18 Charters are up for renewal June 30, 2013. It is not inconceivable that those schools could seek early renewals to avoid Alliance scrutiny.
However, it is interesting to note that they are rated disproportionately well, with only 5 of the 15 that are rated making D or F. That means the first round of Charters that would potentially be scrutinized by the Alliance will be among the most accomplished. And since most sponsors sponsor more than one school, the sponsors' best schools will likely show up in this grouping. That means they aren't as likely to be scrutinized over their poor performing schools, but rather their more highly performing ones.
And since the sponsor won't come before the Alliance but once, it may not ever have to answer for its poor performing schools, unless the Alliance is permitted to bring in the performance of their other schools.
With the new version of the bill, the Alliance has to develop their review standards with ODE and the Charter School lobby. I would hope the standards would permit the Alliance to consider the Sponsor's complete body of work when making its recommendations to the Department, as was the original intent of the legislation.
The Transformation Alliance is a public-private collaboration that the originators of the Cleveland Plan wanted to have sign off authority over Charter Schools in Cleveland and hold Sponsors to greater account for their schools. The idea was to have the community have a greater say over Charter Schools. For after all, the state does call them "Community Schools."
However, the new version of the Cleveland Plan gives the Ohio Department of Education the sign off authority, turning the Alliance into a mere recommendation body.
One wrinkle that was particularly interesting to me was the one that said Charter Sponsors will only be subject to Alliance review once their sponsorship agreements were up for renewal. Couple that with the fact that the new version of the bill sunsets the Alliance after five years, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if a Charter Sponsor isn't up for renewal before five years (which is the duration of many contracts), then the Alliance will have nothing to say.
In addition, Sponsors only have to come before the Alliance once. Ever.
So I decided to look to see what Charter Schools are operated in Cleveland and when their contracts are up. What I found was pretty interesting. And thanks to ODE for providing me the spreadsheet here.
Two schools -- Ohio Connections Academy, Inc. and Horizon Science Academy's Dennison Middle School -- aren't up for renewal until 2018, meaning they escape scrutiny all together.
Of the 63 Charter Schools currently operating in Cleveland, 17 have their contracts up June 30. That means if they renew for five years, they will never come before the Alliance. Among the 13 of those 17 Charters that have been rated by the state, 8 rate D or F on the state report card, 2 rate a C, and there's two Bs and an A. The average Performance Index Score of these schools is 74, which is about a point below the Cleveland District average. Remove the top score and the average drops to 70 -- significantly lower than Cleveland's average.
Another 18 Charters are up for renewal June 30, 2013. It is not inconceivable that those schools could seek early renewals to avoid Alliance scrutiny.
However, it is interesting to note that they are rated disproportionately well, with only 5 of the 15 that are rated making D or F. That means the first round of Charters that would potentially be scrutinized by the Alliance will be among the most accomplished. And since most sponsors sponsor more than one school, the sponsors' best schools will likely show up in this grouping. That means they aren't as likely to be scrutinized over their poor performing schools, but rather their more highly performing ones.
And since the sponsor won't come before the Alliance but once, it may not ever have to answer for its poor performing schools, unless the Alliance is permitted to bring in the performance of their other schools.
With the new version of the bill, the Alliance has to develop their review standards with ODE and the Charter School lobby. I would hope the standards would permit the Alliance to consider the Sponsor's complete body of work when making its recommendations to the Department, as was the original intent of the legislation.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Wonder Why There's a Charter School War in Ohio? Look Here.
If you have ever wondered why the Charter School issue in Ohio is so fraught with discord, look no further than what the Charter School lobby was able to pull off on the so-called Cleveland Plan.
Part of the Plan included a private-public partnership called the Transformation Alliance. Originally, it was going to have a say on who could start Charter Schools in Cleveland and who couldn't. It was going to allow a community's voice to have a say on which Charter Schools should be operating in the city. After all, Ohio does call Charter Schools "Community Schools."
It was met with some wariness by Charter School advocates like Terry Ryan of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. But to his credit, he publicly stated this:
So while Fordham was concerned about the Alliance, they were willing to work together with the Cleveland community to make sure it worked. Sounds like a reasonable approach, right? Well, that's not how David Brennan's people felt. Instead, they held up the vote on the Cleveland Plan so long, it's now delayed until next week, placing the possibility of a levy passing to fund the Plan in jeopardy.
And what did their lobbying produce? A substitute bill that effectively renders the Alliance powerless to do anything about bad Charter Schools.
There are currently 9 Charter School sponsors operating in Cleveland, which is a bad thing, according to national Charter School experts quoted in the Plain Dealer.
As an aside, many charter sponsorship agreements have 5-year terms.
Look for a mad rush of sponsorship renewals and applications in Cleveland between the passage of the bill and the effective date of its implementation (90 days, unless it's passed as an emergency measure, which there aren't the votes to do). If every sponsor does that and makes agreement's term run for five years, the Alliance's Charter School oversight function will be rendered moot.
In addition, the Alliance's sign off authority has been reduced to simply a recommendation that is made to the Ohio Department of Education, which may choose to heed it or not. For now it has the sign off authority the Cleveland community so clearly wanted. So ends the effort to establish more local and community control over Charter Schools in Ohio. I guess "Community School" is a misnomer.
In addition, no Charter School sponsor will have to go through the Alliance process more than once.
Ever.
So if the Charter School sponsor is approved one year and opens 40 Charter Schools, and all of those are failing, the sponsor can keep opening schools in Cleveland and the Alliance will have nothing to say about it.
And the Alliance won't have any oversight of e-Schools, one of which enrolls more kids than any other Charter School in Cleveland.
Finally, the pro-Brennan Charter Advocates were able to get the Cleveland folks to agree to this arrangement: the standards upon which the Alliance will judge whether sponsors can open new Charter Schools will be developed by the Alliance, the Ohio Department of Education (generally more friendly to Charters) and a "statewide nonprofit organization whose membership is comprised solely of entities that sponsor community schools and whose members sponsor the majority of start up community schools in the state".
That means that the Alliance's voice, and therefore the Cleveland community's voice, will be out-voted 2-1 by folks outside the community when it comes to the development of these standards.
While these will be "based on" national standards developed by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (they don't have to be the actual national standards), the standards for determining Charter School efficacy will not necessarily be those accepted nationally, only "where possible" and they will only apply to a specific school's "model, mission and student populations."
And the coup de grace is this: Charter Schools in Cleveland will be able to receive local revenue, both operating and capital revenue, as they have been able to do in every iteration of the Cleveland Plan. And they will be able to do this with no impact on their state aid payments.
So while school districts like Cleveland lose state aid because of their ability to raise local revenue (which is called a "charge off"), that rule will not apply to Charters that receive local revenue.
By way of example, if CMSD needs $5,000 a kid to educate its children, but it can raise $2,500 locally on property taxes, the state will provide CMSD $2,500. Charters get the full $5,000 -- the argument being that since they can't raise local revenue, they shouldn't get the local revenue deduction. Of course this ignores that the per pupil amount is how much it costs to educate the kid in the district, not at the Charter School, which has far fewer and smaller expenses. But that's another story.
However, under the Cleveland Plan, even if Charters can now receive $2,500 in local revenue, the state will continue paying them the full $5,000. So a Charter will now get $7,500 per kid, while CMSD will only get $5,000.
Again, Cleveland kids lose about $3 million a year in per pupil state aid simply because Charter School state aid payments are so much larger than state aid payments to Cleveland. Yet Cleveland Charter Schools will receive these larger payments ($7,344 per pupil rather than the $7,084 per pupil the same kid receives in CMSD after Charters get their money) and local revenue to boot.
If this doesn't serve as the gateway for Charters to receive local revenue statewide in next year's school funding formula, I will be stunned. This effectively opens the door to an additional $8.5 billion that Charters will be able to tap potentially starting next year. And they won't have ANY of their state aid payments reduced, like school districts do, if Cleveland is the model.
All in all, under this new iteration of the Cleveland Plan, Charter Schools will receive now all the benefits (more revenue) with very little (if any) meaningful additional accountability.
If you want to to know why Ohio's Charter School Wars continue, I give you Exhibit A. It simply doesn't happen like this anywhere else.
And it makes life very difficult for the increasingly more vocal Charter School folks who really want to develop great, creative ideas that can really help kids and be upscaled throughout the system. I think there is such potential for the idea of Charter Schools as small incubators of creativity that can help develop system wide change for the good. But only if it doesn't hurt the kids who remain in the traditional public schools, and only if the incubators are actually working and working collaboratively.
In Ohio, every kid in the public schools receives, on average, about 6.5% less state money per year because of how Charters are funded by this state -- substantially cutting into their educational experience. And only 23 of the 300+ Charters in the state would rate in the top 1/2 of all school districts on the Performance Index Score. Ohio's public school kids generally perform better than kids who go to private voucher schools as well, even in Cleveland. Meanwhile, some of the worst Charters in the state (which serve the state's neediest kids) can remain open indefinitely for no apparent reason.
This, my friends, is why Charter Schools are met with such resistance in this state. It may seem odd to folks from outside Ohio who are used to more collaborative and cooperative models. But Ohio's way of doing things is wholly unique.
Until the political sway of the Brennan-backed Charter School Lobby is abated, I fear the Charter School movement will remain a force for discord and division in this state, not the cooperative and helpful force for real reform that it could (and should) be.
Part of the Plan included a private-public partnership called the Transformation Alliance. Originally, it was going to have a say on who could start Charter Schools in Cleveland and who couldn't. It was going to allow a community's voice to have a say on which Charter Schools should be operating in the city. After all, Ohio does call Charter Schools "Community Schools."
It was met with some wariness by Charter School advocates like Terry Ryan of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. But to his credit, he publicly stated this:
"Fordham—which expects to authorize one school in Cleveland in 2012-13—would willingly be the first to go through a vetting process led by the Transformation Alliance. We would see this as an opportunity to partner with the mayor and the Cleveland school district in working to create more and better school options for children and families who badly need them. Maybe together we can help Cleveland reverse its decline, while giving children and families better school choices."
So while Fordham was concerned about the Alliance, they were willing to work together with the Cleveland community to make sure it worked. Sounds like a reasonable approach, right? Well, that's not how David Brennan's people felt. Instead, they held up the vote on the Cleveland Plan so long, it's now delayed until next week, placing the possibility of a levy passing to fund the Plan in jeopardy.
And what did their lobbying produce? A substitute bill that effectively renders the Alliance powerless to do anything about bad Charter Schools.
There are currently 9 Charter School sponsors operating in Cleveland, which is a bad thing, according to national Charter School experts quoted in the Plain Dealer.
"Cleveland is unusual in having nine different agencies approving charters in one city," said Greg Richmond, president of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. "Too many authorizers is not a good thing."Yet the only sponsors that will ever be examined by the Alliance under this new language authored by the pro-Brennan forces are sponsors whose sponsorship agreements are approved or renewed in the next five years. Why do I focus on five years? Because the new language sunsets the Alliance after five years of the effective date of the legislation not from the date of the Alliance's formation. Period.
As an aside, many charter sponsorship agreements have 5-year terms.
Look for a mad rush of sponsorship renewals and applications in Cleveland between the passage of the bill and the effective date of its implementation (90 days, unless it's passed as an emergency measure, which there aren't the votes to do). If every sponsor does that and makes agreement's term run for five years, the Alliance's Charter School oversight function will be rendered moot.
In addition, the Alliance's sign off authority has been reduced to simply a recommendation that is made to the Ohio Department of Education, which may choose to heed it or not. For now it has the sign off authority the Cleveland community so clearly wanted. So ends the effort to establish more local and community control over Charter Schools in Ohio. I guess "Community School" is a misnomer.
In addition, no Charter School sponsor will have to go through the Alliance process more than once.
Ever.
So if the Charter School sponsor is approved one year and opens 40 Charter Schools, and all of those are failing, the sponsor can keep opening schools in Cleveland and the Alliance will have nothing to say about it.
And the Alliance won't have any oversight of e-Schools, one of which enrolls more kids than any other Charter School in Cleveland.
Finally, the pro-Brennan Charter Advocates were able to get the Cleveland folks to agree to this arrangement: the standards upon which the Alliance will judge whether sponsors can open new Charter Schools will be developed by the Alliance, the Ohio Department of Education (generally more friendly to Charters) and a "statewide nonprofit organization whose membership is comprised solely of entities that sponsor community schools and whose members sponsor the majority of start up community schools in the state".
That means that the Alliance's voice, and therefore the Cleveland community's voice, will be out-voted 2-1 by folks outside the community when it comes to the development of these standards.
While these will be "based on" national standards developed by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (they don't have to be the actual national standards), the standards for determining Charter School efficacy will not necessarily be those accepted nationally, only "where possible" and they will only apply to a specific school's "model, mission and student populations."
And the coup de grace is this: Charter Schools in Cleveland will be able to receive local revenue, both operating and capital revenue, as they have been able to do in every iteration of the Cleveland Plan. And they will be able to do this with no impact on their state aid payments.
So while school districts like Cleveland lose state aid because of their ability to raise local revenue (which is called a "charge off"), that rule will not apply to Charters that receive local revenue.
By way of example, if CMSD needs $5,000 a kid to educate its children, but it can raise $2,500 locally on property taxes, the state will provide CMSD $2,500. Charters get the full $5,000 -- the argument being that since they can't raise local revenue, they shouldn't get the local revenue deduction. Of course this ignores that the per pupil amount is how much it costs to educate the kid in the district, not at the Charter School, which has far fewer and smaller expenses. But that's another story.
However, under the Cleveland Plan, even if Charters can now receive $2,500 in local revenue, the state will continue paying them the full $5,000. So a Charter will now get $7,500 per kid, while CMSD will only get $5,000.
Again, Cleveland kids lose about $3 million a year in per pupil state aid simply because Charter School state aid payments are so much larger than state aid payments to Cleveland. Yet Cleveland Charter Schools will receive these larger payments ($7,344 per pupil rather than the $7,084 per pupil the same kid receives in CMSD after Charters get their money) and local revenue to boot.
If this doesn't serve as the gateway for Charters to receive local revenue statewide in next year's school funding formula, I will be stunned. This effectively opens the door to an additional $8.5 billion that Charters will be able to tap potentially starting next year. And they won't have ANY of their state aid payments reduced, like school districts do, if Cleveland is the model.
All in all, under this new iteration of the Cleveland Plan, Charter Schools will receive now all the benefits (more revenue) with very little (if any) meaningful additional accountability.
If you want to to know why Ohio's Charter School Wars continue, I give you Exhibit A. It simply doesn't happen like this anywhere else.
And it makes life very difficult for the increasingly more vocal Charter School folks who really want to develop great, creative ideas that can really help kids and be upscaled throughout the system. I think there is such potential for the idea of Charter Schools as small incubators of creativity that can help develop system wide change for the good. But only if it doesn't hurt the kids who remain in the traditional public schools, and only if the incubators are actually working and working collaboratively.
In Ohio, every kid in the public schools receives, on average, about 6.5% less state money per year because of how Charters are funded by this state -- substantially cutting into their educational experience. And only 23 of the 300+ Charters in the state would rate in the top 1/2 of all school districts on the Performance Index Score. Ohio's public school kids generally perform better than kids who go to private voucher schools as well, even in Cleveland. Meanwhile, some of the worst Charters in the state (which serve the state's neediest kids) can remain open indefinitely for no apparent reason.
This, my friends, is why Charter Schools are met with such resistance in this state. It may seem odd to folks from outside Ohio who are used to more collaborative and cooperative models. But Ohio's way of doing things is wholly unique.
Until the political sway of the Brennan-backed Charter School Lobby is abated, I fear the Charter School movement will remain a force for discord and division in this state, not the cooperative and helpful force for real reform that it could (and should) be.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Could Kasich be to White Hat what Reagan is to Labor?
The Dispatch has an interesting story today about Dropout Recovery Schools, which in Ohio are exempt from Charter School closing standards. That means no matter how poorly they perform, they cannot be closed. Ever.
To his credit, Gov. John Kasich requested in his rather modest education bill introduced this spring to subject these Charter Schools to closure standards.
The worst performing school in the state on the Performance Index Score is the Life Skills Center in Dayton. Their diplomas haven't been accepted by the military. Life Skills' graduation rate is 10.8% -- far worse than the average Charter Dropout Recovery School of about 40%.
To understand how poorly Life Skills is on attendance rate, look at this. According to the latest State Report Card, 24 (.67%) out of Ohio's 3,625 school buildings have attendance rates lower than 66.7% -- 17 of those are Life Skills Centers. That's right. All Life Skills Centers rate in the bottom 24 of the state's 3,625 school buildings on attendance.
However, the same Stan Heffner who took an apparently strong stand in the Dispatch story today:
The Dispatch story didn't mention this fact in its story.
In the Dispatch story, Charter School Advocates insist that Dropout Recovery programs be judged differently than other schools.
If Kasich is able to close down Dropout Recovery Schools, it would be a major defeat for David Brennan, who happens to be the largest single individual donor to Ohio Republicans. In this way, Kasich could be to White Hat what Reagan was to the labor movement when he busted the Air Traffic Controllers -- the impetus for much decreased power from a formerly powerful interest group. What makes Kasich more impressive is this would be decreasing the sway of his party's greatest funder, not its greatest opposition, like labor was to Reagan.
The reason this is a big deal for Brennan is Dropout Recovery Schools are where he makes his real money. According to the latest Annual Report on Charter Schools, Life Skills Centers are paid $28.2 million for the 3,629 children enrolled there. That's $7,765 per pupil. Again, after Charters get their cut, Ohio spends $3,390 per pupil in traditional public schools.
However, since Life Skills only has a 53.5% attendance rate, their per pupil payment for kids that actually attend Life Skills is $14,515. That's right. The state pays Life Skills almost 5 times as much as traditional public schools for the kids it actually "educates".
I don't know if Kasich will get these tighter standards. My guess is the legislature will punt the standard development to someone else for the next year, with the standards never being adopted, which is what happened in 2005.
I don't know if Kasich really thinks this is going to happen, or whether it's a ploy to make himself seem more moderate on Charters than the legislature as his re-election looms.
At least Ohio is having a meaningful discussion about how abysmal Dropout Recovery Charter Schools are performing in this state and (for whatever reason) the Governor is supplying pressure to change that.
For once, there is hope that these most at-risk youth in our state will finally receive the services they deserve.
To his credit, Gov. John Kasich requested in his rather modest education bill introduced this spring to subject these Charter Schools to closure standards.
Gov. John Kasich proposed removing the exemption and creating performance standards for dropout-recovery schools in sweeping education legislation, but Republican leaders in the House stripped the provision from the bill so the schools would remain free of the automatic-closing law.Why would the House do this? Because they're the same chamber that let David Brennan's right hand man (who used to be Gov. George Voinovich's education czar) literally write its version of Charter School Law. And why would that matter? Because Brennan's White Hat Management makes about $30 million a year running some of the lowest performing schools in the state: Life Skills Centers, which are Dropout Recovery Schools.
The worst performing school in the state on the Performance Index Score is the Life Skills Center in Dayton. Their diplomas haven't been accepted by the military. Life Skills' graduation rate is 10.8% -- far worse than the average Charter Dropout Recovery School of about 40%.
To understand how poorly Life Skills is on attendance rate, look at this. According to the latest State Report Card, 24 (.67%) out of Ohio's 3,625 school buildings have attendance rates lower than 66.7% -- 17 of those are Life Skills Centers. That's right. All Life Skills Centers rate in the bottom 24 of the state's 3,625 school buildings on attendance.
However, the same Stan Heffner who took an apparently strong stand in the Dispatch story today:
Ohio Schools Superintendent Stan W. Heffner agreed. “If a dropout-recovery school continually fails to help raise achievement and graduate students, the provisions of Senate Bill 316 would require them to close,” Heffner said.runs the Ohio Department of Education, which approved a new Life Skills Center in Warrensville Heights in February. ODE will sponsor the school, even though it will receive money for all the kids who enroll, but will only be judged on the kids who attend 60% of the time. Now that is a standard, isn't it?
The Dispatch story didn't mention this fact in its story.
In the Dispatch story, Charter School Advocates insist that Dropout Recovery programs be judged differently than other schools.
“They should be judged by separate standards than other schools, given their unique student population,” said Stephanie Klupinski, vice president of legal and legislative affairs for the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools.Yet there have been Dropout Recovery School standards sitting around for the Legislature to simply adopt since 2005. This doesn't require any wheel reinvention, just a priority reinvention. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Denver recently closed its Life Skills Center for poor performance, which Ohio could not do.
If Kasich is able to close down Dropout Recovery Schools, it would be a major defeat for David Brennan, who happens to be the largest single individual donor to Ohio Republicans. In this way, Kasich could be to White Hat what Reagan was to the labor movement when he busted the Air Traffic Controllers -- the impetus for much decreased power from a formerly powerful interest group. What makes Kasich more impressive is this would be decreasing the sway of his party's greatest funder, not its greatest opposition, like labor was to Reagan.
The reason this is a big deal for Brennan is Dropout Recovery Schools are where he makes his real money. According to the latest Annual Report on Charter Schools, Life Skills Centers are paid $28.2 million for the 3,629 children enrolled there. That's $7,765 per pupil. Again, after Charters get their cut, Ohio spends $3,390 per pupil in traditional public schools.
However, since Life Skills only has a 53.5% attendance rate, their per pupil payment for kids that actually attend Life Skills is $14,515. That's right. The state pays Life Skills almost 5 times as much as traditional public schools for the kids it actually "educates".
I don't know if Kasich will get these tighter standards. My guess is the legislature will punt the standard development to someone else for the next year, with the standards never being adopted, which is what happened in 2005.
I don't know if Kasich really thinks this is going to happen, or whether it's a ploy to make himself seem more moderate on Charters than the legislature as his re-election looms.
At least Ohio is having a meaningful discussion about how abysmal Dropout Recovery Charter Schools are performing in this state and (for whatever reason) the Governor is supplying pressure to change that.
For once, there is hope that these most at-risk youth in our state will finally receive the services they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)