Measuring Up



Ohio

TOTAL SCORE:
64 out of 132

Rank: 13 out of 18

See a summary of the state’s charter law.

See additional observations about charters in the state.

What is the state of charter schools in Ohio?

GROWTH INDICATORS

 

 

Score


1. Public school share
 (2014–15)

9

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Number

Percentage

 

Public charter schools

384

11%

 

 


2. Public school student share
 (2014–15)

6

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

Number

Percentage

 

Public charter school students

123,844

7%

 

 

3. Students by race and ethnicity (2013–14)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

White

42%

75%

-33%

Black

45%

14%

31%

Hispanic

6%

4%

2%

Asian

1%

2%

-1%

Other

6%

5%

1%

Total minority

58%

25%

33%

 

4. Students in special populations (2013–14)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

Free and reduced-price lunch status

74%

44%

30%

Special education status

N/A

N/A

N/A

English learner status

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total special student populations

74%

44%

30%

 

5. Schools by geographic distribution (2012–13)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

Charters

Traditional

Difference

City

73%

17%

56%

Suburb

17%

39%

-22%

Town

6%

15%

-9%

Rural

4%

29%

-25%

Total nonsuburban

83%

61%

22%

 

6. Communities with more than 10 percent of students in public charter schools (2014–15)

3

weight = 1 | Possible total = 4

 

 

 

Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in public charter schools

8

   
 

7. New public charter schools opened over the past five years  (2010–15)

9

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

2010–11

38

Average Annual Open Rate

8.0%

2011–12

29

2012–13

31

2013–14

45

2014–15

11

Total number

154

 

 

 

8. Public charter schools closed over the past five years (2009–14)

9

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

2009–10

19

Average Annual Closure Rate

4.6%

2010–11

14

2011–12

12

2012–13

19

2013–14

27

Total number

91

 

 

 
 

INNOVATION INDICATORS

 

 

Score

9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus (2012–13)

4

weight = 2 | Possible total = 8

 

 

 

No Excuses

11%

Total

39%

STEM

8%

Arts

3%

Classical

0%

Purposely diverse

0.3%

Single sex

0.3%

International/Foreign language

2%

Montessori/Waldorf

2%

Dropout/Expulsion recovery

14%

Military

0.3%

Vocational training

4%

Public policy/Citizenship

0%

 

QUALITY INDICATORS

 

 

Score

10. Additional days of learning in reading (2007–11)

0

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

Number of additional days of learning in reading

-14

 

 

 

11. Additional days of learning in math (2007–11)

0

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 

 

 

Number of additional days of learning in math

-43

 

 

 

12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system (2012–14)

6

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 2012-13

2013-14

Difference

A

2%

1%

-1%

B

10%

10%

0%

Total

12%

11%

-1%

 

13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system (2012–14)

6

weight = 3 | Possible total = 12

 2012-13

2013-14

Difference

D

58%

57%

-1%

1

6%

8%

2%

Total

64%

65%

1%

 

Items Reported But Not Scored

Startups versus conversions (2014–15)

 

Startups

Conversions

 

 

Percentage of a state’s public charter schools

82%

18%

 

 

 

Charter authorizers (2014–15)

 

Number of authorizers

Number of charter schools

Average number of charters per authorizer

Percentage of the state’s public charters authorized by this type of authorizer

Local education agency

57

168

3

44%

State education agency

1

19

19

5%

Independent charter board

Noneducational government entity

Higher education institution

4

54

14

14%

Nonprofit

6

142

24

37%

 

Virtual public charter schools and students (2013–14)

Number of virtual public charter school students

36,899

 

 

Percentage of a state’s public charter school student population enrolled
in virtual charter schools

30%

 

 

Number of virtual public charter schools

13

 

 

Percentage of a state’s public charter schools that are virtual charter schools

3%

 

 

 

Health of the Movement Summary

 Ohio’s charter public school movement ranked #13 out of 18, scoring 64 points out of 132.

Ohio scored relatively well on the following indicators:

  • In 2014-15, 11 percent of the state’s public schools were charters.
  • During 2012-13, 83 percent of the state’s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 61 percent of traditional public schools.
  • During 2014-15, eight communities in Ohio had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters.
  • Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 154 public charters opened in Ohio, an 8 percent average annual open rate. However, only 11 of those opened in 2014-15, a 70 percent drop from the average yearly open rate for the previous four years.
  • Between 2009-10 and 2013-14, 91 charter public schools closed, a 4.6 percent average annual closure rate. However, in 2013-14, the number of charter schools that closed increased by 41 percent as compared with the average number of closures over the previous four years.
  • In 2012-13, 39 percent of the state’s charter public schools were special-focus schools.

Ohio scored relatively low on the following indicator:

  • Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited lower academic growth (14 fewer days in reading and 43 fewer days in math), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. However, it is important to note that these numbers are likely somewhat skewed because of the large presence of underperforming full-time virtual charter public schools in Ohio.1

In addition to the above points, we also offer the following observations about the movement in Ohio:

  • In 2014-15, 7 percent of the state’s public school students were charter students.
  • In 2013-14, Ohio’s charter public schools served a significantly higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (33 percentage points more) as compared with the traditional public schools. According to the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools, these numbers are somewhat skewed by the inclusion of data from full-time virtual charter public schools. If we were to only include data for brick-and-mortar charters, the percentage of racial and ethnic minority students in charters would be even higher than the results we show here.
  • During 2013-14, charter public schools in Ohio served a significantly higher percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students (30 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools.
  • Between 2012-13 and 2013-14, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state’s accountability system decreased by 1 percentage point (from 12 percent to 11 percent).
  • Between 2012-13 and 2013-14, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state’s accountability system increased by 1 percentage point (from 64 percent to 65 percent).
  • In 2014-15, 82 percent of the state’s charter public schools were start-ups and 18 percent were conversions.
  • As of 2014-15, 57 local school boards had authorized 168 charter public schools (44 percent of the state’s total number of charter public schools), the state department of education had authorized 19 public charters (5 percent), four higher education institutions had authorized 54 public charters (14 percent), and six nonprofit organizations had authorized 142 public charters (37 percent).
  • In 2013-14, 13 full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Ohio, serving 36,899 students (30 percent of the state’s charter public school population).

1Center for Research on Education Outcomes, National Charter School Study 2015 (Stanford, CA: Author, 2015).

concluding thoughts

  • As a result of changes made in 2015, Ohio’s charter school law is now in a much better position to support high-quality charter public schools. However, it still needs improvement to allow brick-and-mortar start-up charters statewide and to provide equitable funding and facilities support.
  • In Ohio, a relatively high percentage of the state’s public schools are charters, showing a high demand for these innovative public school options.
  • In Ohio, charter public schools serve a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students and free and reduced-price lunch students than traditional public schools, showing that charters are serving those students who most need a better public school option.
  • Ohio also has a relatively high percentage of special-focus schools, showing that charters are providing a diverse array of options for students and educators.
  • While many successful charter public schools operate in Ohio, the performance of the movement as a whole needs to improve, as demonstrated by the four quality metrics in this report.
  • We encourage the state to ensure that authorizers are closing chronically low-performing charters and to shut down low-performing authorizers. Changes made to the state’s charter school law in 2015 should help these efforts.