When facing problems of great magnitude, one must have the courage to take great risks. A key component of Ohio’s strategy to improve public education has been support for charter schools, which are wildly popular with current enrollment of nearly 125,000 students – more than twice the size of Ohio’s largest school district.
But mixed results in terms of student academic performance has made charter schools vulnerable to attacks by those who philosophically oppose them. Countless comparisons have been made between the academic performance of traditional and charter public schools. Different approaches to assessing outcomes have revealed different results, but one thing is certain: nearly all Ohio urban public schools struggle to adequately educate students who live in poverty.
Against the backdrop of the recent release of three key studies relevant to Ohio’s ongoing policy debate on charter schools, there have been countless calls for reform. Those calls have been heard loud and clear by Gov. John Kasich and members of the Ohio General Assembly.
Those of us who believe in and advocate for charters can generally agree that not all charter schools are producing acceptable student outcomes; the same is true for many traditional urban public schools. But in the case of charters, the law ensures that chronically under-performing schools close. In fact, Ohio’s automatic closure laws for charter schools are the toughest in the country.
An issue of concern equal to academic success is accountability. Misperceptions exist regarding the levels of accountability to which charter schools are bound. It’s essential that the public, as well those who engage in policy debates, have a clear understanding that charter schools must administer the same state academic assessments as their traditional counterparts and are graded with the same report cards, with one exception. As the result of recent legislation, a new report card with clear and unique performance expectations is being phased in for dropout recovery schools.
Ohio charter schools must employ licensed, highly qualified teachers, and are subject to “Sunshine” and public records laws. All are governed by not-for-profit boards of directors, and all must meet the same health and safety requirements with respect to school facilities.
As Ohio’s biennial budget bill processis under way – and with it, increased calls for tougher laws for charter schools — let’s be certain there is general understanding of existing requirements and recent changes in Ohio’s charter school laws.
Before rushing to judgment that Ohio charter school policies and laws are grossly inadequate, let’s let the ink dry on some of the most significant changes — elimination of a disincentive to sponsors with the courage to close under-performing schools, development and implementation of a rigorous sponsor performance assessment, and a strict prohibition against the re-opening of schools closed for poor academic performance — before seeking to solve problems that have already been addressed.
The next step in the process? A meaningful dialogue and debate around how to further improve charter school performance – and to preserve school choice for countless students and families — rather than philosophical arguments on the value and legitimacy of school choice.
Darlene Chambers Ph.D. is the president and CEO of Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools, a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the enhancement and sustainability of quality charter schools.
About the Author