A glimmer of hope shined in one of the most contentious education reform states today.
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute hosted an event to release their latest report, Quality in Adversity: Lessons from Ohio’s Best Charter Schools. The report selectively surveyed leaders from the state’s 110 most successful public charter schools. Responses were collected from 76 leaders, for a response rate of 70 percent. Survey respondents represented schools that were highly economically and racially diverse.
A summary of those findings will be presented below. But first, a recap of the event.
After the researchers presented key findings from the report, three of the surveyed leaders from KIPP Columbus, Dayton Early College Academies, and United Schools Network took the stage to share their experiences and challenges leading high-poverty, high-performing public charter schools.
I felt inspired. Those leaders were so thoughtful, so diplomatic, and so well spoken. Most importantly, they are so very, very good at what they do – reminding us of the powerful and essential role of leadership in creating and sustaining rigorous, yet joyful and caring schools.
But what ultimately took my breath away was when the leader of Ohio’s chapter of the American Federation of Teachers said:
I looked at this report. These are the exact same issues faced in traditional districts… We’re not against charter schools, we’re just opposed to poor performers. … We could think about it as a public system instead of a competitive system.
Instead of evoking the traditional district verses charter schools stance – the “us vs. them” position that union leaders so often make – she focused on what was common.
After the panel concluded, I went over and thanked her, particularly because of her use of the word “public.” By acknowledging charter schools as part of the public school system, she signaled that she didn’t buy into the mischaracterization often done to divide the sectors. We talked, immediately took a liking to one another, and we hugged. I’ve been on an optimism high ever since.
Below are key findings from the report:
- Public Charter School Leaders See Quality as a Top Priority. “Who wants a bad school anywhere?” asked Hannah Powell, Executive Director of KIPP Columbus.
-80 percent of the respondents agree that Ohio could use more public charter schools – but only if they are high performing.
-75 percent of the respondents agree that moving faster to close failing public charter schools would be a very or somewhat effective way to improve Ohio’s public charter school sector.
- The Playing Field is Unfair.
-83 percent cite “lack of funding” as a serious problem facing their school.
-96 percent believe local property tax money should follow the student.
Ohio urban public charter schools receive only 60¢ for every dollar a district gets for their students’ education, and this has real impacts. Additionally, because of the low state subsidy for facilities and lack of access to facilities, Ohio can’t attract or grow highly regarded charter management organizations or philanthropic support the way other major urban cities have. The leaders call for a legislative fix.
-75 percent felt criticism of Ohio’s public charter schools tends to be unfair and exaggerated.
The unsupportive environment and negative reputation of Ohio’s public charter schools, often fueled by the media, makes it even harder for the high performers to thrive. Negative, broad-brush generalizations are widely heard, even in teacher preparation programs.
- Public Charter Schools Struggle to Find and Retain Great Teachers.
-85 percent find it difficult to find good teaching candidates generally or in a specific area.
Not long ago, school administrators received over 1,000 applicants for every position posted. Today, that number is half. Even so, one administrator explained that several hundred applicants winnows down to seven or eight viable candidates. 90 percent weed themselves out because their answers to the essay questions are so poorly written or their responses don’t reflect a fit with the mission.
“If you fundamentally don’t believe that all kids can learn,
this is not the right place for you to be.”
Additionally, his candidates have to ace the Ohio assessment in their content area, teach a lesson, get feedback, and then reteach the lesson. What that administrator is looking for is: Can they apply feedback to their performance?
Keeping good teachers is hard, too. Because of the funding inequities, charters can’t compete with district salaries. For example, one response compared the $46,000 starting salary at the district to the $30,000 at the public charter.
What the schools can offer are good working conditions and job satisfaction. Just as parents seek schools where they feel that they and their children are cared about and are part of a community, the public charter leaders create work environments where teachers feel cared about and can work alongside others that share their approach to education.
These leaders are building their talent pipeline through partnerships with universities, purposefully those that have selective teacher preparation programs. KIPP created a Fellowship program providing promising prospective and purposefully diverse teachers a year of mentoring.
My ultimate takeaway after attending the event is that it’s so important to listen to the voices of leaders of public schools – charter or district – that are beating the odds so we can better support and expand them. My hope is that more individuals, both in public policy and in day-to-day discourse, can step up and stop the unnecessary and counterproductive division between educators.
We don’t have to chase each other around as if we are adversaries. Instead, we can see the good in each other and our common goals, and use our time and resources on the work we really need and want to do – getting more kids the help they need.