More By Author
November 04, 2010
November 12, 2010
January 05, 2011
November 02, 2009
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 Scores, E-Schools vs. Traditional Schools in Districts Enrolling Students in E-Schools, 2010-11
Chart 2 shows the percentage of e-schools and traditional schools by value added rating. Value added is a measurement of how much growth students are making in reading and math over the course of one year, compared to how much the state expects them to gain. Value added data were avaliable for 11 e-schools and 2,411 tradional schools. A higher percentage of traditional schools(23 percent) ?made expected growth compared to e-schools(9 percent). On a brigher note, it should be pointed out that no e-schools made less than expected growth, compared to 19 percent of traditional schools.
Chart 2: Distribution of E-Schools vs. Traditional Schools in Districts Enrolling Students in E-Schools by Value-Added Growth Category, 2010-11
Finally Chart 3 takes a looks PI and academic growth for e-schools and traditional schools in districts where e-school students are enrolled. The highest- performing schools made above expected growth and received a PI score of 100 or better, while the lowest performing schools made below expected growth and received a PI score of less than 80.? As you can see Chart 3 shows that almost all of Ohio's??? e-schools demonstrated either expected growth and average performance or expected growth and low performance.
Today's shout out goes to Ohio Virtual Academy for being the only e-school to achieve above expected growth and average performance. While we recognize that OVA was not high achieving and high growth, it was the highest performing e-school in the state. Kudos!
Chart 3: E-Schools vs. Traditional Schools in Districts Enrolling Students in E-Schools, Performance Index Growth in Reading and Math, 2010-11
Stay tuned for more analysis to come!
-Analyses by Dana Brinson, Daniela Doyle, and Tom Koester
- Bianca Speranza