'School Choice' and Disenfranchising the Public

"School choice" is one of those policy ideas that just never goes away, and it probably never will. For some people it is an irresistible way to unlock all those public tax dollars and turn them into private profits. For others it's a way to make sure their children don't have to go to school with "those people." Other people are justifiably attracted to the idea of more control over their child's education. And still others have a sincere belief that competition really does create greatness.

Voucher fans and proponents of modern charters like to focus on those promises. They're much quieter about one of the other effects of a choice system.

School choice disenfranchises the public.

Our public school system is set up to serve the public. All the public. It is not set up to serve just parents or just students. Everybody benefits from a system of roadways in this country -- even people who don't drive cars -- because it allows a hundred other systems of service and commerce to function well.

School choice treats parents as if they are the only stakeholders in education. They are not. We all depend on a society in which people are reasonably well-educated. We all depend on a society in which people have a reasonably good understanding of how things work. We all depend on a society in which people have the basic abilities needed to take care of themselves and the people around them. We all depend on dealing with doctors and plumbers and lawyers and clerks and neighbors who can read and write and figure. We hope for fellow voters who will not elect a politician because he promises to convert straw to gold by using cold fusion. We all depend on a society that can move forward because it is composed of people who know things.

(Read more at the Huffington Post)

Ohio school board's Democrats want charter school limits

The state school board's beefed-up coalition of Democrats says it will fight for better accountability for Ohio's charter schools, beginning with pushing for the election of Democrats for board president and vice president.

Minority Democrats on the 19-member panel said Friday they'll promote a so-called "pro public education" agenda as the powerful policy-setting board begins the year's business on Monday.

They plan to nominate newcomer Pat Bruns to face veteran board member Tom Gunlock, an appointee of Gov. John Kasich (KAY'-sik), in the race to replace departing president Debe Terhar (DEH'-bee TAYR'-hahr). Democrat Michael Collins, a board incumbent, will be nominated as vice president, likely facing incumbent Ron Rudduck.

(Read more at WFMJ).

Ohio's weak charter school system needs a massive makeover

A recent Stanford University report points out in detail what many education critics in Ohio have long realized: Far too many children in Ohio's 390 charter schools are falling behind their traditional public school peers in math and reading – except for youngsters in Cleveland's charter schools, the best of which have partnered with the city school district. Clearly, the rest of the state must catch up.

Macke Raymond, director of Stanford's Center for Research on Educational Outcomes or CREDO, which worked in partnership with the nonprofit Fordham Institute, a charter school advocate, blames disengaged charter school boards and charter school authorizers, known as sponsors, for failing to eliminate or improve mediocre schools.

One improvement is on its way: Ohio's new evaluation system for sponsors, which begins in January, will rate sponsors according to the academic performance of their students. If the evaluation system doesn't work, it ought to be tweaked.

Meanwhile, the CREDO study should spur Gov. John Kasich, who recently said he wants better regulation of charter schools, and the charter school reform committee created by state Sen. Peggy Lehner, a Republican from Kettering who leads the Ohio Senate Education Committee, to improve the system. Lehner hopes to present legislation later this year. 

Another recent Fordham Institute study -- this one done with Bellwether Education Partners -- also deserves the attention of Lehner's committee. It recommends that Ohio's charter law clearly outline the responsibilities of authorizers, school board and management companies. It also advocates giving charter schools more money. 

The latter should not happen as long as so many charter-school youngsters learn less in reading and math than students in Ohio's traditional public schools, a key finding of the CREDO study.

Read more at Cleveland.com)

State school board Democrats vow that their "voice will be heard" on testing, school funding and charter schools

Democrats on the state school board have banded together to push for better state funding of schools, better controls over charter schools and a reduction in the amount of standardized tests kids have to take.

The coalition of seven members will be a minority on the mostly-Republican board of 19. But leaders of the coalition said in a press conference this morning that they hope that by speaking together, they can have a voice in support of education.

"That voice will be heard," said new board member Bob Hagan, a former state representative from Youngstown. "I don't think you've seen or heard of a coalition like this at the state school board in the past."

In the hour-long discussion with media from across the state, six of the seven members raised multiple objections with changes that have occurred in public education in Ohio the last several years: more state money going to charter schools and away from traditional districts; a reduction in state support for public schools; a lack of accountability in both finances and performance of charter schools; increased testing of students; and creation of new evaluation systems for teachers and principals they say may need adjustments.

(Read more at Cleveland.com)

Now lawmakers should overhaul Ohio’s charter-school law

It shouldn’t be a surprise that stricter up-front standards lead to healthier charter schools, but it’s worth pointing out, nonetheless: This school year, after the Ohio Department of Education finally made clear that it won’t tolerate shoddy charter-school startups, it got a better crop of new schools.

This is a significant step, but just one of many that Ohio must make to turn its charter-school program from more than a decade of mediocrity and failure to a future of greater promise.

Only 11 new charter schools opened in Ohio for the current school year — a big drop from the 2013-14 year, when more than 50 started. More important is that halfway through the school year, all of the new ones remain open.

By this time last year, Columbus alone had seen 17 charters close. Nine of them had just opened the previous August and operated only until October or November, spending a total of $1.6 million in public money. The failures made clear that, despite numerous attempts to improve the weak oversight of charter schools in Ohio, the Wild West character of the program persisted.

The weakest link in the Ohio system has been the sponsors, sometimes called authorizers, of charter schools. The bar has been too low to be approved as an authorizer, and the law allows obvious conflicts of interest that work against the best interests of students.

(Read more at the Dispatch)

As a result, sponsors — who are supposed to vet proposed schools, hold them accountable and close them if they fail— have sometimes simply used charter schools, regardless of their quality, as a way to make money by selling them services.

The great charter school rip-off

Last week when former President Bill Clinton meandered onto the topic of charter schools, he mentioned something about an “original bargain” that charters were, according to the reporter for The Huffington Post, “supposed to do a better job of educating students.”

A writer at Salon called the remark “stunning” because it brought to light the fact that the overwhelming majority of charter schools do no better than traditional public schools. Yet, as the Huffington reporter reminded us, charter schools are rarely shuttered for low academic performance.

But what’s most remarkable about what Clinton said is how little his statement resembles the truth about how charters have become a reality in so many American communities.

In a real “bargaining process,” those who bear the consequences of the deal have some say-so on the terms, the deal-makers have to represent themselves honestly (or the deal is off and the negotiating ends), and there are measures in place to ensure everyone involved is held accountable after the deal has been struck.

But that’s not what’s happening in the great charter industry rollout transpiring across the country. Rather than a negotiation over terms, charters are being imposed on communities – either by legislative fiat or well-engineered public policy campaigns. Many charter school operators keep their practices hidden or have been found to be blatantly corrupt. And no one seems to be doing anything to ensure real accountability for these rapidly expanding school operations.

Instead of the “bargain” political leaders may have thought they struck with seemingly well-intentioned charter entrepreneurs, what has transpired instead looks more like a raw deal for millions of students, their families, and their communities. And what political leaders ought to be doing – rather than spouting unfounded platitudes, as Clinton did, about “what works” – is putting the brakes on a deal gone bad, ensuring those most affected by charter school rollouts are brought to the bargaining table, and completely renegotiating the terms for governing these schools.

(Continue reading at Salon.com)