Will Charter Schools Get a Charge Off?

I'm sorry to go geek on you, but I have to in order to fully explain the point of this post. In Gov. John Kasich's new biennial budget, he wants to allow charter schools to collect local revenue on top of their state revenue. Just like districts, he argues. So that's fair and equitable, right?

Well, maybe. See, here's the issue. When a district raises local revenue, the state counts that against them on their state money. So if a district can raise, say 50% of the cost of educating kids in their district, the state picks up the other 50%. This elimination of 50% of their state revenue to be filled in by local revenue is what's called a "charge off."

However, it appears that in Kasich's budget proposal, the local revenue charters raise would not be counted against their state money.

So, charter schools would receive all the state money the state says they need (right now, the minimum charter school deduction from school districts is about $1,600 more than what the average Ohio district gets from the state because of this "charge off"), plus local revenue on top of that. Meanwhile, school districts receive significantly less state money than the state says they need with their local revenue making up the difference.

Doesn't sound quite so fair now, does it?

What's ironic is that Ohio's public school advocates have clamored for years for the state to fund them exactly as the charter schools that get local revenue would be funded under Kasich's plan.

If we want charter and traditional school funding to be equitable (as charter advocates have claimed they want), then the state must do one of two things with this new local funding element: eliminate the charge off for districts, or create one for charters.

Any other way seems pretty unfair.

When Equity Isn't Enough

Yesterday, Gov. John Kasich revealed his $72 billion budget (which is more than $20 billion more than the one I handled in 2009, but that's a different story). In it, Kasich calls for changes to the way Ohio's schools receive state revenue. It will lead to some districts getting cuts and others not.

“We are really trying to say we are trying to help those who can’t help themselves,” Kasich told the Columbus Dispatch. “For those that can help themselves, we need you to step up and help.”

First of all, it's the state whose responsibility it is to provide the funding for education in this state, not local taxpayers. That's what the Ohio Supreme Court ruled four different times. Districts need to ask the state to "step up and help." So that comment was insulting to the Ohio Constitution, not to mention the districts whose communities simply won't pass levies, despite years of trying.

But let's go beyond that and talk about what Kasich means. He's saying, essentially, that if you have the capacity to raise your taxes to pay more for schools than you are, then he's going to cut your state money to punish you. No word if he will then endorse the subsequent levy that will have to go on the ballot to replace that money. But that's the idea. Take money from districts whose taxpayers aren't paying enough and give it to poorer districts whose taxpayers are stepping up more.

The district-by-district runs are not yet out. And what Kasich says and what the runs end up actually doing have diverged quite a bit in recent budgets. But assuming that's the result -- that communities that have contributed more locally will get a bump at the expense of communities that have not, it seems like a push toward equity. And that's good, right? Well, not really.

The effort is meaningless because it's still inadequate.

When you admit that more than 1/2 of all districts will get cut under this plan, even though you're touting a "record" level of funding for schools (a highly dubious claim employing the fuzziest of math), something isn't right. And that something is that the state is not spending enough to properly fund schools.

The fact you are taking money from districts to fund other districts means you don't have enough to fund both. Period. It's inadequate.

And while I love the idea of equity, it doesn't matter if there's an inadequate amount of money to distribute. Here's a demonstration by way of example.

I am taking three of my friends to a $10 movie. I have $36 in my pocket, and no one else has anything. If I equitably distribute the money, we all get $9, but guess what? None of us get into the movie because it's inadequate to meet the ticket price. The only way any of us see the movie is if I decide to inequitably distribute the money so that two or three of us can see it. Maybe it's the two or three who really want to see it, or it's the two or three who help me out the most with babysitting my kids, or it's the two or three who make the least amount of money and can't afford to go without my help. Or I let one friend go without because I know he's got $10 in the console of his car. Whatever the reason, though, I'm pretty well deciding whose worthy of my inadequate amount of money. All of those are perfectly legitimate ways to decide who gets into the movie, but it misses the point. 

The essence of true equity is that everyone gets in, regardless of circumstance.

To finish my example, I need to find four more dollars. That's true equity.

What this silly analogy is trying to show that that you simply cannot have true equity without adequacy. This is a concept that Kasich and others simply don't either understand or don't want to face. Because it means that they will have to find a bit more money in the largest state budget of all time for the 1.7 million kids it's their responsibility to educate.

But it appears they'd rather punish kids in districts whose communities are fed up with paying local taxes to fund what is a state funding responsibility. And that, I suppose is what passes as fair.

Sure seems unfair to me.

Stanford Study: U.S. Has Smallest Achievement Gap of Any Similar Country

For ages, it seems, this country has been obsessed with closing achievement gaps between demographic groups, whether by race, ethnicity or poverty. And we've seen some significant improvements in gaps, but they still exist, to the chagrin of many, including me.

However, a new study by Stanford of the United States' international testing performance (the overvaluation of which is an issue for another day) indicates that perhaps this achievement gap obsession is actually paying off.

The study found that the achievement here is smaller than any similar country.

Here are some of the findings:

• "There is an achievement gap between more and less disadvantaged students in every country; surprisingly, that gap is smaller in the United States than in similar post-industrial countries, and not much larger than in the very highest scoring countries.

• Achievement of U.S. disadvantaged students has been rising rapidly over time, while achievement of disadvantaged students in countries to which the United States is frequently unfavorably compared – Canada, Finland and Korea, for example – has been falling rapidly.

• But the highest social class students in United States do worse than their peers in other nations, and this gap widened from 2000 to 2009 on the PISA.

• U.S. PISA scores are depressed partly because of a sampling flaw resulting in a disproportionate number of students from high-poverty schools among the test-takers. About 40 percent of the PISA sample in the United States was drawn from schools where half or more of the students are eligible for the free lunch program, though only 32 percent of students nationwide attend such schools."

This result points out something pretty significant: all the efforts, including our more controversial shift to more test taking accountability over the last 30 years has worked to some extent for our nation's neediest youth (yet, interestingly, it hasn't worked as well for our nation's highest performers).

So on this, our education reform efforts have had success. Now the bigger question is, does it matter? Time will likely tell the whole story. And was it worth it? Time, too, will tell that story. Is it worth giving 8 year olds test anxiety? Are the better results indicative of a better, more vibrant economy? Is the achievement gap improvement going to improve the lives of traditionally disadvantaged youth? Last I checked, the African-American unemployment rate of 16-24 year olds remained double that of their white countrymen, despite the improved achievement gap. 

And this brings me to my main point -- one that is espoused by Yong Zhao and others -- do these tests have any bearing on a country's health or future success? We've never scored well on international tests, yet we've been the world's dominant political and economic power for the better part of 8 decades. We have the world's best overall quality of life and most stable democracy. And this is with our kids scoring at or near the bottom of international tests.

Maybe we should fixate less on our achievement gaps on these tests that seem to have very little predictive impact on a country's future well being and figure out how to close our most troubling gap -- the employment gap. Education can play a roll. But if this data indicates anything, it's that closing education gaps can't fix our employment issues all by themselves. That requires more work.

Ohio Auditor: Charters have far fewer students than state pays them to educate

In a disturbing new report from State Auditor David Yost, officials found that at one Ohio charter school, the state was paying the school to educate about 160 students, yet none, that's right, zero, were actually at the school.

And that's just the worst of a really chilling report, which, if the results are extrapolated across the life of the Ohio charter school program, means taxpayers have paid more than $2 billion for kids to be educated in charter schools who weren't even there.

Here are the takeaways:

• Seven of 30 schools had headcounts more than two standard deviations below the amount the school told the state it had.
• Nine of 30 schools that had headcounts at least 10% below what the charter told the state it had, though it was less than two standard deviations.
• The remaining 14 had headcounts that weren't off by as much.
• However, 27 of 30 schools had fewer students at the school than they were being paid to educate by the state

This means that more than 1/2 of all the charter schools chosen at random had significantly fewer students attending their schools than the state was paying them to educate, while 90% had at least some fewer amount. 

This is a big deal because charter schools are paid out of state revenue originally intended for school districts. If that money isn't actually educating those students, then the children in the local districts are being hurt twice -- once because they have significantly less state revenue anyway due to the charter school deduction, then again because the money is going to a school that isn't even educating those students.

Yost came up with several recommendations, including more frequent counts, better reporting and practices that allow sponsors and the state to better flag potential issues. But the point is this: We've had charters for 16 years in Ohio. We've spent now about $8.3 billion on them (through the first January payment report). If the headcounts have been as off as they were during this random audit, which was an average of 28%, during the life of the charter school program, then we've paid $2.3 billion for kids that weren't even in the charter schools. I'm not saying that's how much has been spent, but it tells you something of the scale of Yost's results. 

And remember this audit came during the height of what has been an unprecedented level of charter school scrutiny in this state, so you would think charters would be minding even more Ps and Qs than usual.

Kudos to Yost for doing this much needed work. Now it's up the legislature to fix this before any more tax dollars are wasted. 

Biggest Obstacle to Ohio Charter Reform in Two Charts

Yes, there is hope that Ohio will finally get its act together and clean up our charter school laws. However, here are two charts that suggest it's going to be harder than having a few influential people say the right things.

What do you notice about the patterns between state money going to charter school operators and their campaign contributions? That's right. The pattern is strikingly similar. The more state money goes to these big operators, the more campaign contributions politicians receive.

Over at www.KnowYourCharter.com, we just did a report that outlines the issues here, as well as delineating some examples in the recent past of these big contributors getting what they want. We must remain vigilant and look out for any exemptions, grandfathering or delays in implementation of these new charter reforms, whatever they look like. They must apply to all charters, operators and sponsors. Now. And without exception. 

We've had charters for 16 years. And some of the schools run by these two operators have been around for more than a decade, mostly failing kids while forcing districts across the state to subsidize their operations with locally raised tax dollars. Why would we give them another 5 years to keep failing? 

One answer may be found in the first chart above. Let's hope it's not. For our kids' sake.

Ohio Falls from 5th to 18th in EdWeek Rankings

In 2010, Ohio, for once, could crow about its education achievements. The state had just passed a landmark education reform plan that won the Frank Newman Award from the Education Commission of the States, denoting the country's most "bold, courageous, non-partisan" education reform of the year. That package included a new school funding system that the folks who sued the state over its old funding system said put us on the path to constitutionality.

About this same time, Education Week put out its annual Quality Counts report and rated Ohio's education system as the country's 5th best overall -- the state's highest rank ever on that report.

Fast forward to this year. The state ditched that award-winning finance system and reforms. In its place, the current governor tried to replace it with one that was so panned in 2013 that the legislature essentially dropped it and adopted a funding scheme from 2005. The state's charter school system has become a national embarrassment. And then today, EdWeek released its Quality Counts report. And now, Ohio's education system ranks 18th in the country.

Now there are issues with EdWeek's rankings, as there are with any rankings. But the Quality Counts report is put out by a serious publication and impartial journalists who look at many measures of success and struggle. It's about as unbiased and quality an overall assessment of the country's education system as you could find.

In 2010, only Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia and New York rated ahead of Ohio. Now it's those four plus Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, North Dakota, Maine, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Delaware. Only 13 states had a bigger dip in rank during that time period.

What could account for the drop? Any one of a number of things have played a part. But suffice to say, Ohio's leaders have overseen a precipitous drop in Ohio's education system -- a drop that our kids simply can't afford. As a parent of two school-aged children, I want action.

While much of Ohio's education policy air has been sucked up by the debate over charter schools, their efficacy and what to do about them, I hope legislators and leaders take note of our precipitous drop in these rankings. Many of Ohio's education policy struggles stem from our state's charter school disaster. But these rankings indicate that perhaps there's more going on.

Remember that 90 percent of our state's children do not attend charter schools. Let's not, I pray, forget their needs. For we do at our peril.

First Day Turmoil in Ohio Legislature?

I have to say that I was a bit surprised by the recent rhetoric of the leaders in the House and Senate regarding education.

In the Senate, where many of the most reasonable and practical legislators on the issue are genuinely working toward meaningful improvements, President Keith Faber went to his "education deregulation" card and talked about how more money isn't the answer to education. It's hard to square this "we'll cut money for you, but don't worry, we'll cut mandates so you won't complain too much" philosophy with the serious minds in that chamber.

Meanwhile, in the House, where members of the Education Committee actually want to eliminate the public education system, cut $5,000 checks to parents and let them send their kids where they can afford -- quality be damned -- Speaker Cliff Rosenberger (who infamously took a junket  to Turkey with the embattled Gulen affiliated schools) talked about trying to figure out how to improve the chances of all students' success.

For the last several years, the reasoned, practical and most thoughtful voices on education have resided in the Senate, while the more strident and damaging voices resided in the House (thanks in no small measure to the hatred of teacher unions and love for charter school operator David Brennan displayed by Speaker William Batchelder). It seems as if the current leaders in the two chambers, though, have very different visions from their rank and file.

Of course there is a huge caveat here: first-day legislative rhetorical rarely, if ever, turns into reality.
I just find it fascinating to see whose vision ends up ruling the day in the Ohio House and Senate. The pull and tug between leaders and members on this issue will be interesting to watch.

So stay tuned.