The Columbus Dispatch published a tough editorial calling on Governor Kasich and the Legislation to pass meaningful regulations for charter schools. It begins:
Ohioans who support school choice long have been frustrated by the dismal performance, overall, of the state’s charter schools.
A study released recently by one of the nation’s foremost scholars of charter schools shows just how dismal: Ohio charters not only perform worse than traditional public schools, but the gap is growing larger.
Fortunately, another, equally credible study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute explains why many of Ohio’s charter schools are weak and how to fix them. These studies should be required reading for every member of the next General Assembly.
Gov. John Kasich is paying attention; in an address on Thursday, he pledged to work with lawmakers next year to develop “tough regulations” for charter schools.
In the first study, the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO), of Stanford University, paired individual charter-school students with “virtual twins” — demographically similar students at a conventional public school from which the charter school draws.
In 2009, on average, Ohio charter-school students and those in traditional schools made about the same amount of progress in reading, but charter-school students ended up 43 “learning days” behind their virtual twins in math. Four years later, the picture was worse for charter schools: They remained about 43 days behind in math, and were 14 days behind in reading.
The poor performance is no mystery; it’s the result of a law that is indifferent to quality and encourages abuse.
Some flaws in the law may be honest mistakes. For example, many thought in 1997 that allowing a broad array of sponsors would allow the greatest amount of competition and thus the best choices. But it turns out that many of Ohio’s 67 authorizers lack either the expertise or the good faith to competently oversee schools.
In other areas, though, Ohio charter law is designed to favor for-profit school-operating companies over the interests of students. No mystery there, either; for-profit education companies are major campaign contributors.
One of the worst provisions allows sponsor/authorizers, the supposed watchdogs over charter schools, to sell services to those schools, thereby creating a strong incentive for them to keep a bad school open. Another, which strips charter-school boards of the power to fire unsatisfactory school operators, was called by one national policy analyst “the most breathtaking abuse in the nation.”
In my view, the Legislature should start by banning for-profit management of charters. Get the greed out of operating a school. Educators should be fairly compensated for their work, but no one should go to the bank with millions of dollars that are then used for campaign contributions to protect their fiefdom.

Lots of respect for the report on Ohio charters done by Bellweather, commissioned by the Fordham group.
LikeLike
Ah, yes, Bellwether and Fordham – two groups known for their objectivity.
LikeLike
Dienne, I never said those groups were “objective” – I said it was good to see charter advocates urging more accountability when charter laws are weak or ineffective.
LikeLike
It is surprising that The Dispatch published this. Our only local newspaper here in Columbus is a big Kasich supporter.
LikeLike
Jamie, some of the strongest backers of accountability in weak charter laws are strong supporters of public school options, including chartering. I’ll have more to say about this next month in Education Week.
LikeLike
“… public school options, including chartering.”
Charters are “public school options” the same way that cigarettes are a “lifestyle choice.”
Orwell would be impressed with you, Joe.
LikeLike
42 state legislatures recognize charters as part of public education in their states. I understand you disagree.
LikeLike
Joe, I said nothing about for-profit businesses selling hardware and desks to schools. Do you know of any public schools that operate for profit? Do you know of any public schools where the principal is able to legally keep a few million of the funding for himself or herself and not go to jail? As for the legislatures, we know that many of them have been bought by charter magnates with campaign contributions. At least, those who read this blog know it as there are examples from many states.
LikeLike
The largest contributor to some state legislators is teachers unions – and of course they are welcome to do so.
It’s clear that there is a deep dislike of for-profits running schools among many who post here and of some people who earn lots of money. But didn’t you write that, if it were up to you, you would eliminate all federal startup funds for charters, who-ever organizes them?
LikeLike
Do those same 42 states recognize Lockheed Martin as “public”?
LikeLike
Charter schools are private schools getting public money. There have been court cases in which the charter school owners themselves have contended that they are private entities.
LikeLike
Joe, the fact is that 42 state legislatures regard charters as part of public. Sometimes people working in schools don’t understand legislation.
I remember when a group of us started a k-12 option in St. Paul. We heard some of the same criticism then as charters hear now — you’re taking away from existing public schools, you should focus on improving existing schools, you’re destroying public education, etc etc. That school is still around as part of the St. Paul district, and helped encourage the district to create a number of additional options.
But if the school board had listened to the naysayers, the option never would have started. The school attracted a broad cross section of youngsters and did not use standardized test admissions tests – the kind of admissions tests that are ok with a number of people who post here.
LikeLike
A lot of state legislatures have voted for state fruits, state vegetables, state desserts, state minerals, and, in my state, a state firearm. Just because a legislature does something (particularly when heavily influenced by ALEC) doesn’t make it a good idea.
LikeLike
“The largest contributor to some state legislators is teachers unions”, your statement is false Joe.
Teachers do contribute to campaigns through their vote cope contributions, but the amount contributed is miniscule compared to what business interests contribute.
Time to stop spouting false talking points in conversations here, don’t you think?
LikeLike
Betsy, here is a study funded by the Ford Foundation (no friend to charter public schools and a sometime contributor to ideas proposed by unions). This study found the the top contributor to political campaigns was the NEA:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A
LikeLike
It’s nice that the Columbus Dispatch continues to focus exclusively on their preferred “choice” agenda, but I think the Cleveland Plain Dealer gets a gold star for remembering to mention the other schools in this state:
“Also a lump of coal to members of the Ohio General Assembly who want to either micromanage traditional public schools — intelligent design lessons, anyone? — or give more money to substandard charter schools but won’t spend a second of their time to make sure that Ohio’s traditional public schools are equitably funded. Make that a double.”
The proposal from Fordham includes still more money for charter schools. I’d like someone I’m paying in Columbus to analyze what that means for Ohio’s existing public schools before changing funding laws. I think the people employed by the State of Ohio have a duty to consider the effects of funding proposals that were proposed by two charter school groups on Ohio’s existing public schools.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/12/coal_in_their_stockings_for_20.html#incart_river
LikeLike
“After a short presentation by Smarick, hear reactions from a panel discussion of Ohio-based charter school experts that includes President and CEO of the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools Dr. Darlene Chambers, Senate Education Chair Peggy Lehner, House Education Vice Chair Andy Brenner, and the United Schools Network’s Chief Learning Officer John Dues.”
Since the proposal includes more funding for charter schools, perhaps we could have a public school advocate at the table when these laws are written, or is that too much to ask?
Why do I think this isn’t going to end well for public schools?
“We need to do something that was done about 25 years ago in the former Soviet Union and eastern bloc: sell off the existing buildings, equipment and real estate to those in the private sector,” wrote state Rep. Andrew Brenner, a Republican from Powell, on Brenner Brief News, a website operated by his wife.”
Wonderful! He must be our negotiator? Maybe public school kids in Ohio can sell some more gift wrap and hire a real advocate.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/03/ohio_lawmaker_americas_public.html
LikeLike
Chiara, the school boards, supts, and teacher unions regularly communicate their desire for more $ (and other things) to the state legislature…as they should. In some states district & charter advocates work together to urge for more $ to public schools
LikeLike
So, should all public money be fully accounted for in a completely transparent way? Where is the line between public and private spending of taxpayer dollars?
Charters do not pay teachers well, silence teachers, and hire non-certified staff. Should charters be held to the same standards as public schools? Should teachers have a voice in how classrooms are run and how they are evaluated? Should profits go to owners, executives, and shareholders, or be reinvested in the classroom and students?
Remember, one of the original arguments for charters years ago was they could do a better job than public schools, with less regulation, and requiring less money. Advocates said the free market and competition would automagically improve education for all students, including poor and disabled. Has that model failed? By more regulation, are we just reinventing the public schools that already exist, only repeating the mistakes of the past?
LikeLike
Since I helped write Minnesota’s charter legislation and worked with 20 other states on their legislation, I have some idea about the rationales. It was not that the things you described. The rationale was that
a. it is important to empower educators and community groups to carry out their dreams and visions, so long as they were willing to be responsible for results, using multiple measures.
b. All students don’t learn in the same way. There are some things all public schools should teach but there ought to be a variety of options.
c. Traditional districts sometimes are very supportive of teachers creative ideas – but sometimes they are not. As Shanker noted, people trying to create new district options often “are treated like traitors or outlaws for daring to move outside the lockstep..” (and this was 20 years before NCLB.
d. There are some limitations on what should be allowed. These schools should be non-sectarian, open to all, with audits on how they use $. And they had to follow all federal laws pertaining to public schools.
e. Either schools would achieve the goals they and the “authorizer” agreed to, or the schools would be shut down.
Incidentally, some state laws permit hiring non-license teachers, other charters do not. Some charters pay teachers the same as local district schools, some don’t.
We n
Those are some of the rationales. We did not promise all charters would be more effective, or that they would operate for less or that the market would “automatically improve other schools.
A lot of myths have grown up or been presented. But documents are available about what was suggested.
LikeLike
If you did indeed have a hand in drafting so much failed legislation, maybe you also need “accountability”. The myths are not coming from teachers. Teachers are being silenced and undermined and we live the anti-educator, VAM-based reform movement every day. To us, it is a harsh, punitive, destructive reality constructed by people who lack insight and understanding. But you really didn’t answer my questions in a substantive way. I, for one, tire of every self-appointed “expert” who has never stepped foot in my classroom and enjoys an insular existence, telling me how to do my job better because it is accepted all teachers are subpar and the root cause of every ill of society. The details of upcoming changes and regulations will be more revealing.
LikeLike
I spent 14 years teaching/being an administrator in urban public schools. Our office is an urban public school, and I’m in public schools 2-3 days a week. I also write a weekly newspaper column about learning and teaching that constantly includes perspectives of classroom teachers:
http://hometownsource.com/tag/joe-nathan/?category=columns-opinion
Reactions always welcome – you can post any column you choose.
Happy holidays.
Joe
LikeLike
Well, Joe, whatever “other states” do Ohio is writing a public school funding law without input from public schools.
Charter school funding effects public schools. Every day.
Since Ohio’s public schools outperformed Ohio’s “charter sector” why aren’t we talking about increased funding for Ohio’s public schools?
Incredibly, instead, we’re contemplating STILL MORE additional funding for charter schools.
I think lawmakers should be congratulating the public schools in these districts. They outperformed charters despite a state and federal preference for charter schools. Instead, it’s one more legislative session that will be devoted exclusively to charter schools.
Public schools can’t win this game. If public schools outperform charters, charters get more money. If public schools under-perform charter schools, charter schools also get more money.
Under what set of circumstances do we focus on public schools?
LikeLike
Chiara, Ohio school boards, superintendents, principals and teacher unions are providing suggestions the Governor and legislators. So are other groups that you regularly cite that are critical of charters. I assume you also provide suggestions.
Democracy is messy but I’m glad a variety of people and organizations offer suggestions.
LikeLike
Also, I know it’s impolite, but who wrote Ohio’s 2011 charter school law revisions?
Gosh, I hope it wasn’t these same two charter groups. Might want to broaden the ‘ol brain trust, Ohio. Ask someone outside the two “experts” we seem to be solely relying on for law-making. I have a crazy idea. Maybe Ohio lawmakers could write the Ohio Code. I’m a “traditionalist” though. Obviously clinging to old, outdated ideas.
“Biennial budget bill includes many provisions related to charter schools.
Sponsor caps are removed, and a new ranking system for sponsor
performance is established. The highly-qualified operator provision is
removed. The state board is tasked to establish standards for e-schools
and dropout recovery charter schools.”
Click to access OAPCS_CLawGB_FINAL.pdf
LikeLike