Ohio Gadfly Daily

This week we took a look at what impact, if any, charter authorizer type (e.g., non-profit, educational service center, school district, or university) has on a school's academic performance, how high poverty urban schools perform, and why one Buckeye State charter school authorizer deserve to lose its right to sponsor schools. Today, with the continued help of our friends at Public Impact, we take a look at Ohio's E-School or Virtual School academic performance. These schools provide full-time instruction to students online. Twenty-seven charter e-schools operated in Ohio in 2010-11 and served nearly 30,000 students who hail from all but three (of 610) districts across the state. E-school students account for nearly one-third of Ohio's charter school students.

Chart 1 compares the distribution of Performance Index Scores of e-school charters in Ohio to the distribution for traditional schools in districts enrolling e-students. (Performance Index is a measure of student achievement across all tested subjects and grades; the score ranges from 0-120, with 100 being the state goal for all schools.) As can be seen from the graph below, Ohio's e-schools trailed behind traditional schools in districts where e-school students are enrolled. Eighty-five percent of e-schools received a PI score between 65 and 85, while 77 percent of traditional schools received a PI score between 90 and 105. The highest PI score for an e-school- 92- was also significantly lower than the highest score for a traditional school- 116.

Chart 1: Distribution of Performance Index...

As part of our ongoing look at 2010-11 Ohio school performance data, earlier this week Jamie shared an analysis showing that charter authorizer type (e.g., non-profit, educational service center, district, or university) didn't correlate to school quality. ??While this may be true about authorizer type, a deeper look at the data for individual authorizer performance illustrates that not all authorizers are equal. Specifically, there are outliers, and the troubled Cleveland-based Ashe Culture Center jumps out as a true underachiever worthy of being booted from the authorizer business for good.

We took a closer look at the 10 largest authorizers (aka ???sponsors??? in the Buckeye State) in Ohio by the number of students enrolled in their sponsored schools. Taken together these authorizers sponsor about two-thirds of the state's 339 charters, and enroll about 80 percent of all Ohio charter students. In all three analyses (looking at academic ratings A-F, value-added growth, and Performance Index score) there is some fluctuation between authorizers that do well and those that struggle. For example, the Fordham Foundation stands out in Graph I because it has no schools rated in Academic Emergency, but in graph II Fordham's value-added results are lacking.

For Ashe, however, there is no fluctuation as its results are poor no matter how you cut it. ??This is backed up by the fact that Ashe has seen more of its schools closed automatically under the state's charter school academic ???death penalty??? than any other sponsor.


On Monday we looked at charter school performance by authorizer type and structure and learned that neither seems to matter much when it comes to school quality. Today, with the continued help of our friends at Public Impact, we take a look at high-poverty schools in Ohio's Big 8 urban areas to see if charter or district schools demonstrated better success with this student population. For the purpose of this analysis ?high-poverty? is defined as schools serving a student population where at least 75 percent of students qualify as economically disadvantaged.

Chart 1 compares the distribution of Performance Index scores of high-poverty charters in the Big 8 to the distribution for high-poverty district schools in those cities. ?A greater percentage of charter schools than district schools have performance index scores of 100 or better (PI ranges from 0-120), and 2.9 percent of charters met or exceed the state goal of a PI score of 100, compared to 0.5 percent of district schools. High-poverty charter schools also had a higher percentage of schools with a PI score of 60 or below (7.6 percent), compared to only 3.9 percent of district schools. Despite the overrepresentation at both ends of the performance spectrum, high-poverty charters overall earned an average PI score of 78.2 compared to 77.3 for high-poverty district schools.

Chart 1: Distribution of Performance Index Scores, High-Poverty Ohio 8 Charter Schools vs. High-Poverty Ohio 8 District Schools, 2010-11


Getting academic standards right ??? specifying the knowledge and skills that teachers should teach and students should learn ??? is at the heart of just about everything that matters in K-12 education. Standards wield significant influence over what happens inside classrooms and high-quality academic standards that are the same across state lines offer the best shot at ensuring quality education for all American students, whether they live in Massachusetts, Oregon, or Ohio.

Ohio committed itself to embracing higher standards that cross state lines when it joined 45 other states and the District of Columbia in adopting the Common Core standards in math and English language arts (ELA) in June 2010. These standards, crafted by experts and practitioners convened by the National Governor's Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, are more rigorous than Ohio's current ones. In Fordham's 2010 analysis of state academic standards, outside expert reviewers found that Ohio's ELA and math standards both earned an undistinguished C, while the Common Core standards in ELA and math are rated B+ and A ??? respectively.

The Common Core standards as promulgated appear deeper, more specific, and more cogent than most state academic standards, including Ohio's. They are well grounded in what students will need in order to be successful in college and in a career. In the language of current reform efforts, the K-12 common core standards will better ensure that students are college and career ready....

Yesterday, Jamie wrote about both the academic achievement and progress of students in Ohio's urban public schools.?? Today's analysis marries these two performance metrics together.

Ohio, like most states, issues data on both schools' annual achievement (a snapshot of performance) and academic growth over time. Ideally, schools will have high proportions of their students achieving at (or above) grade level and making measurable growth or progress in test scores over the course of the school year.

Chart 1 plots Ohio's Big 8 charter and district schools by both achievement and growth. Each square represents an elementary or middle school (high schools do not receive a value-added ??? growth -- score in Ohio). The upper-right section of the matrix is the ideal: high achievement and high growth. The vertical placement of each square represents a school's achievement; the higher a square, the higher the achievement. The horizontal location of each square represents a school's value-added category only (that is, a square on the left side of a box does not necessarily have lower value-added than one on the right; they are both in the same value added category).

Chart 1: Urban charter schools vs. Ohio 8 district schools, Performance Index growth in reading and math (2010-11)

Source: Ohio interactive local report card

Overall, it doesn't appear either type of school has the performance advantage.?? While charters have an...

With the help of our friends at Public Impact - who did the data analysis represented by the graphs below ? today we continue our series on Ohio school performance data with a look at student performance in Ohio's ?Big 8? districts (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown) and charter schools.

First let's look at raw achievement of students attending Ohio's Big 8 district schools, and bricks-and-mortar charters in the Big 8. (We'll look at e-school charter performance later in the series.) Achievement is measured by a ?Performance Index,? a weighted average of student achievement in all tested subjects in grades 3-8, and which ranges from 1-120 (100 is the state goal).

Chart 1 compares the distribution of PI scores of bricks-and-mortar charters in the Big 8 districts to the distribution for traditional schools in those districts. There are two things to look for in the chart below. First, the higher the point on the graph, the more schools with that PI score. Second, the further to the right the curve, the higher the PI score.

Not surprisingly, charter schools are overrepresented at both the upper and lower tails of the performance scale.? A greater percentage of charter schools than district schools have PI scores of 100 or better; 8.4 percent of charters are in this high-flying category compared to 5.6 percent of district schools.? Unfortunately, the same is true for schools with PI scores of 60 or below. While only 4 percent...

Ohio has been a national leader in using value-added measures of student academic growth. The current value-added system was piloted in 2007, and in August 2008 value-added was fully integrated into Ohio's academic accountability system. Value-added analysis, in the Buckeye state, uses complex calculations to report school-wide and district-wide student academic growth in reading and math, in grades four through eight.?? Schools and districts are assigned one of three ratings:

  1. Above expected growth ??? indicates that the students in a school or a district made greater progress than expected. These schools and districts are ???adding value.???
  2. Met expected growth ??? indicates that students made the amount of expected academic progress in one school year. Districts and schools in this category are still adding value, but not as much as those schools rated Above expected growth.
  3. Below expected growth ??? indicates that students in the school or district made less academic progress than the state expected.

Chart 1 shows the distribution of Ohio's public schools by overall value-added rating for the past three school years. Note the fluctuation in the percentage of schools making Above expected growth and Meeting expected growth during the last three academic years. In 2008-9, almost two-thirds of the schools in Ohio made above expected growth while in 2010-11 this number dropped to just about 1 and 4 schools. During this same period of time, the percentage of schools Meeting expected growth almost doubled from 27 percent to 59 percent. The percentage of schools Below...

Today the Ohio Department of Education releases troves of performance data about the state's public schools. Fordham once again provided quick-turnaround, city-by-city analyses of public school performance in the Buckeye state's eight major urban areas. You can read those reports here.

A few highlights about Ohio's biggest cities:

  • ??Cincinnati is Ohio's top-performing urban district and when you break down the data, the district's outstanding performance is clear. Forty-three percent of the district's students attend a school rated A or B by the state, and just four percent attend an F-rated school. Further, 88 percent of students in the Queen City attend a school that met or exceeded state value-added expectations.
  • Kudos to Cleveland's charter schools for the academic strides they are making. Three years ago, 42 percent of Cleveland charter students were in an F-rated school and just nine percent were in an A school. Today, the percentage in F schools has nearly dropped by half (to 21 percent) and the percentage in A schools has more than doubled (to 20 percent). Furthermore, six of that city's ten top-performing schools are charter schools.
  • In Columbus, just four percent of charter school students attend a school that didn't meet the state's value-added expectations (compared to 14 percent of district students and 21 percent of all ???Big 8??? public school students).

And as Jamie promised, we'll keep up the analysis through a two-week blog series in partnership with our friends at Public Impact....

The Ohio Department of Education released student achievement data for the 2010-11 school year earlier today, and the results for Dayton provide a picture of what's happening per school performance in Fordham's hometown.

The good news is that the public schools ??? both district and charter schools ??? posted academic gains in 2010-11. While just two years ago, no student in Dayton attended a public school that was rated Excellent or Excellent with Distinction, this past school year five percent of the city's students attended such a school. Further, in 2010-11, 55 percent of Dayton students attended a school rated Continuous Improvement (a C) or better, up from 36 percent in 2009-10. The percent of students in Academic Emergency (F) rated schools dropped from 36 percent in 2009-10 to just 15 percent in 2010-11. Furthermore, far fewer students in Dayton ??? in districts and charters ??? attended a D or F-rated school. And far more students in Dayton are meeting or exceeded ???expected growth??? than falling below it.??

What's driving this improvement? There seems to be at least four factors involved in these gains. First, the Dayton Public Schools' (DPS) academic reform (see here) plan is starting to bear fruit. District high school results are mostly improved from 2009-10, and two Dayton high schools ??? Stivers School for the Arts and the David H. Ponitz Career Technology Center ??? are in the top eight of all Dayton schools in terms of student performance.?? Further, the district-authorized...

Each year, the Fordham Ohio team does an analysis of urban school performance in August when statewide achievement data?are released. We've been doing this analysis for many years, reporting on the number of Ohio students in the Buckeye State's ?Big 8? districts (the largest eight urban districts) attending schools rated A-F, achieving various levels of expected growth (value-added), comparing this to students in charter schools statewide, and conducting city-by-city analyses that incorporate many different metrics.

With the help of our friends at Public Impact, we'll be doing it again this year and will be releasing various findings over the course of the next two to three weeks, so stay tuned.?

On tap this year are some new analyses, including: a comparison of performance and growth of charters by charter type (conversion v. start-up) and authorizer type (of which Ohio has many); a look at growth of schools over time (and exploring whether the recent changes to Ohio's value-added system impact how many schools end up meeting ?expected growth?); a look at performance and growth among high-poverty schools, and more.?

Stay tuned!

-Jamie Davies O'Leary