ERIC ED605999: 2019 Fordham Sponsorship Annual Report

2019·1.9 MB·English

by  ERIC

2019
2019
Fordham Sponsorship
Annual Report

Table of contents
I. Letter from the Vice President for Sponsorship ....................................................1
II. Who we are ................................................................................................................3
a. Mission
b. History
c. Leadership
d. Staff
III. What we do................................................................................................................5
a. Research and commentary
b. Charter school sponsorship
IV. Portfolio performance ............................................................................................11
a. School performance on state tests
b. School performance on the elements of Fordham’s contractual
accountability plan
c. School performance on Ohio Department of Education
sponsor-reporting requirements
V. Directory of schools ................................................................................................18
VI. Appendix: Academic and organizational accountability plan .........................25
VII. Sources .....................................................................................................................29
VIII. Endnotes ..................................................................................................................30
I
I. Letter from the Vice President for Sponsorship
Friends,
At the outset this year, I would like to take a moment to remember those in our hometown of
Dayton, Ohio, who have been affected by the Memorial Day weekend tornadoes and the tragic
mass shooting that occurred here on August 4. Signs of both events remain. Recovery will be
a long road, though the way the community here has come together to provide support has
been remarkable and inspiring and truly something that we are grateful to be part of.
In terms of the 2018–19 school year, it was also a state budget year, and House Bill 166—the
biennial budget bill—ushered in big changes for Ohio’s charter school sector. There was
good news on the funding front, with thirty million dollars allocated to charters designated
“community schools of quality.” Qualifying charter schools will meet criteria based on, among
other things, the school’s report card and sponsor’s rating. In a state where public charter
schools have long received about a third less funding than districts, the $1,750 for students
identified as economically disadvantaged and $1,000 for noneconomically disadvantaged
students will have a significant impact. Additional funding for all Ohio schools, focused on
student wellness and success, will provide $675 million through 2021 (charters are projected to
receive $20 million in 2020 and $29 million in 2021). As a means of incentivizing more students
to consider obtaining an industry credential, $25 million is available to expand credentialing
reimbursement and create new programs to support technical training.
The focus wasn’t just on funding, with changes made to end-of-course examinations and
graduation requirements. Our colleagues in Fordham’s Columbus office and its partners fought
hard against the effort to water down graduation requirements and in the end prevailed. This,
of course, is a positive outcome for young people, who need to be well prepared for life after
high school, whether that’s college, a career, or military service.
House Bill 166 also contained a large number of provisions that affect charter school sponsors
and the schools themselves. Although there were several changes related to sponsors, the
most welcome development was a provision allowing
sponsors to undergo the state’s voluminous sponsor
evaluation just once every three years if they achieve Our colleagues in Fordham’s
ratings of effective or exemplary for three years in a row.
Columbus office and its
And in terms of schools, Ohio’s permanent-closure statute
was tweaked such that closure criteria must now be met partners fought hard
for three years in a row (as opposed to two of the most against the effort to
recent three years) for a charter school to close under
water down graduation
state law. The budget also eliminated a provision that
requirements and
required charter school teachers in core subjects to be
“properly certified or licensed,” a change which should in the end prevailed.
allow charters to develop their own teacher training
1 | 2019 FORDHAM SPONSORSHIP ANNUAL REPORT
I
programs. All public schools are also now required to report behavior prevention programs
and services to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), which has discretion to distribute
funding to support the programming.
Our portfolio of schools changed as well, as we parted ways with Village Preparatory School
:: Woodland Hills Campus and Citizens Leadership Academy–East, both located in Cleveland.
We’re excited to sponsor a new start-up school called ReGeneration Bond Hill, which is located
in Cincinnati. The school opened in August serving grades K–1 and will add one grade per year
until the school serves grades K–5.
We project additional growth in our portfolio in coming years, with existing schools continuing
to expand and new schools continuing to apply. To support that growth, we’ve added two part-
time staff to the team and divided their responsibilities into two regions, Dayton/Cincinnati
and Columbus/Portsmouth. We also said goodbye to board member Steve Dackin, who has
been a wonderful supporter and thoughtful and insightful partner for the sponsorship team.
We greatly appreciated his leadership and service on our board and look forward to his public
service on the Ohio state board of education.
In closing, we’d like to thank the boards, leadership, and staff at each of our sponsored schools.
We acknowledge their hard work each day on behalf of students and their families and are
glad that we have the opportunity to support them.

Kathryn Mullen Upton
Vice President for Sponsorship and Dayton Initiatives
2
II
II. Who we are
OUR MISSION
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute and its affiliated Foundation promote educational excellence
for every child in America by focusing on three policy areas: High Expectations, Quality
Choices, and Personalized Pathways. We believe that all schools that are supported with public
funds should be held accountable for helping their students make academic progress from
year to year; that all parents deserve to have a range of high-quality options, as well as reliable
information with which to make the best choice for their children; and that students have a
variety of needs, interests, and ambitions, so our K–12 education system ought to reflect this.
We promote these ideals via quality research, analysis, and commentary, as well as offices in
Ohio that advocate for better education for Buckeye State children and authorize a portfolio
of charter schools.
HISTORY OF THE THOMAS B. FORDHAM FOUNDATION AND INSTITUTE
Fordham’s roots go back six decades, when Thelma Fordham Pruett founded the Thomas
B. Fordham Foundation in memory of her late husband, Dayton industrialist Thomas B.
Fordham. But its current form didn’t come about until 1997, when the foundation was
relaunched as a rebirth of the Educational Excellence Network.
1959 The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation is 2004 The Foundation is among the first nonprofits
founded by Thelma Fordham Pruett, in memory of approved by ODE to sponsor charter schools
her late husband and Dayton industrialist Thomas in Ohio.
B. Fordham.
2005 The Foundation begins its charter school
1997 Following Mrs. Pruett’s death, the Foundation sponsorship work, based in Dayton, with thirteen
is relaunched with a focus on primary and schools in four Ohio cities.
secondary education nationally and in Fordham’s
2007 The Foundation’s sister organization, a public
home state of Ohio. The Foundation hires Chester
charity called the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, is
E. Finn, Jr. as its president, and the board of
founded. Today, the Institute is the face of almost
directors expands.
all of our work.
1997 The Fordham Foundation releases its first
2008 The Fordham Institute publishes its one
publication, a review of state academic standards
hundredth report, Sweating the Small Stuff.
in English language arts.
2014 Mike Petrilli becomes Fordham’s second
2001 Work begins in Dayton, Ohio, where the
president.
Foundation helps seed some of the first charter
schools in the city. 2019 The Fordham Foundation celebrates its
fourteenth year as a charter school sponsor, at
2003 Fordham’s Dayton office opens and serves as
which point in time we provided monitoring and
the base of the Foundation’s Ohio operations.
technical assistance to twelve schools in five Ohio
cities, serving approximately 5,500 students.
3 | 2019 FORDHAM SPONSORSHIP ANNUAL REPORT
II
LEADERSHIP
Michael J. Petrilli (president) leads the Foundation and Institute, which are both
overseen by a board of trustees.
David P. Driscoll Rod Paige
Former Commissioner of Education, Former U.S. Secretary of Education (2001–05)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Michael J. Petrilli
Chester E. Finn, Jr. President, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Distinguished Senior Fellow and President and Institute
Emeritus, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Stefanie Sanford
Thomas A. Holton, Esq. Chief of Policy, Advocacy, and Government
Counsel to the Firm, Porter, Wright, Relations, College Board
Morris & Arthur
Caprice Young
Michael W. Kelly National Superintendent, Learn4Life Schools
President and CEO, Central Park Credit Bank
SENIOR STAFF SPONSORSHIP STAFF
Michael J. Petrilli Kathryn Mullen Upton
President Vice President for Sponsorship and
Dayton Initiatives
Amber Northern
Senior Vice President for Research Theda Sampson
CNP, Director for Applications and Contracts
Gary LaBelle
Vice President for Finance and Operations Miles Caunin, JD
Controller
Chad Aldis
Vice President for Ohio Policy and Advocacy Gwen Muhammad
Data Analyst
Kathryn Mullen Upton
Vice President for Sponsorship and DeAnna Sullivan
Dayton Initiatives School Quality Analyst
Victoria McDougald Lisa Halpin
Chief of Staff School Quality Analyst
4
III
III. What we do
RESEARCH AND COMMENTARY
Our colleagues at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s offices in Washington, D.C., and Columbus,
Ohio, produce quality research, analysis, and commentary on national and Ohio education reform.
In 2018–19, they published several excellent reports; a sample of their most notable work follows.
How Aligned is Career and Technical Education Because numerous studies suggest that Americans
to Local Labor Markets? | April 2019 have become less mobile in recent decades, it’s
more imperative than ever that the local business,
How Aligned is Career
postsecondary, and K–12 education sectors join
and Technical Education
hands to strengthen the connection between high
to Local Labor Markets?,
school CTE programs and the local job market. Only
coauthored by Pepperdine
then will labor-market “alignment” become more than
University associate
a buzzword.
professor Cameron Sublett
and Fordham Institute
senior research and
Student-Teacher Race Match in Charter and
policy associate David
Traditional Public Schools | June 2019
Griffith, examines whether
students in high school CTE programs are more likely There’s mounting evidence that, for children of color
to take courses in high-demand and/or high-wage especially, having one or more teachers of the same
industries, both nationally and locally. By linking CTE race over the course of students’ educational careers
course-taking data from the High School Longitudinal seems to make a positive difference. But to what
Survey to employment data from the Bureau of extent, if any, do the benefits of having a same-race
Labor Statistics, it seeks to answer three central teacher vary by type of school?
research questions:
Existing race-match studies
• To what extent do national CTE course-taking fail to distinguish among the
patterns at the high school level reflect the current traditional district and charter
distribution of jobs across fields and industries? school sectors. Knowing
whether differences exist
• To what extent is CTE course taking in high school
across school types could
linked to local employment and industry wages?
improve how we recruit and
• How do patterns of CTE course taking differ by develop educators, as well
student race and gender? as shed light on whether
the success of urban charter
Overall, the study finds that many fields that support
schools is due in part to their
a significant number of U.S. jobs see little CTE course
greater success in recruiting
taking in high school, suggesting the potential for
a diverse teaching staff—an explanation that’s received
greater alignment in these areas.
short shrift in research and policy circles.
Students are also more likely to take courses in fields
Student-Teacher Race Match in Charter and Traditional
that support more local jobs but less likely to do so
Public Schools, authored by Dr. Seth Gershenson of
when those jobs are high paying, suggesting that
American University, uses student-level data for all
today’s CTE is connecting kids with jobs that are
public school students in North Carolina from grades
plentiful but low paying, by industry standards.
3–5 between 2006 and 2013. The analysis yielded
five findings:
5 | 2019 FORDHAM SPONSORSHIP ANNUAL REPORT
III
1. Traditional public schools and charter schools To determine how practitioners see this complex
serve the same proportion of black students, issue, we partnered with the RAND Corporation
but charter schools have about 35 percent more to survey a nationally representative sample of
black teachers. more than 1,200 teachers in grades 3–12. And
because racial and socioeconomic equity is a
2. Black students in charter schools are about
key consideration in the discipline debate, we
50 percent more likely to have a black teacher than
oversampled African American teachers and teachers
their traditional public school counterparts, but
in high-poverty schools to ensure that their views
white students are equally as likely to have a white
were represented—something not attempted in any
teacher across the two sectors.
prior discipline survey.
3. Race-match effects are nearly twice as large in
Discipline Reform through the Eyes of Teachers,
the charter school sector as in traditional public
coauthored by Fordham Institute researchers David
schools, though these differences are statistically
Griffith and Adam Tyner, yielded five findings:
insignificant, likely due to small sample sizes.
1. Teachers in high-poverty schools report higher
4. In charter schools, race-match effects are
rates of verbal disrespect, physical fighting, and
twice as large for nonwhite students as for
assault—and most say a disorderly or unsafe
white students, while no such difference exists in
environment makes learning difficult.
traditional public schools.
2. Most teachers say discipline is inconsistent
5. Race-match effects are relatively constant across
or inadequate and that the recent decline in
school locales, enrollments, and compositions.
suspensions is at least partly explained by a
Because the effects of having a same-race teacher higher tolerance for misbehavior or increased
appear stronger in charter schools than in the district underreporting.
sector—and stronger still for nonwhite students—it’s
3. Although many teachers see value in newer
encouraging that the charter sector has more of
disciplinary approaches—such as positive behavioral
these matches between black students and teachers,
interventions and supports (PBIS) and restorative
due largely to having more black teachers in the first
justice—most also say that suspensions can be useful
place. This is clearly an overlooked dimension of
and appropriate in some circumstances.
charter effectiveness.
4. Most teachers say the majority of students suffer
because of a few chronically disruptive peers—
Discipline Reform through the Eyes of Teachers
some of whom should not be in a general
July 2019
education setting.
The debate over school-
5. Despite the likely costs for students who
discipline reform is one of
misbehave—and their belief that discipline is
the most polarized in all
racially biased—many African American
of education. Advocates
teachers say suspensions, expulsions, and other
for reform believe that
forms of “exclusionary discipline” should be used
suspensions are racially
more often.
biased and put students
in a “school-to-prison These findings are the basis for 4 recommendations:
pipeline.” Opponents
1. Federal and state policy should “do no harm” when
worry that softer discipline
it comes to school discipline.
approaches will make
classrooms unruly, impeding efforts to help all 2. Local school districts should give teachers
students learn and narrow achievement gaps. and principals greater discretion when it comes
to suspensions.
6
III
III. What we do, continued
3. Advocates for potentially disruptive students Shortchanging Ohio’s Charter School Students:
should focus on improving the environments to An Analysis of Charter Funding in Fiscal Years
which they are likely to be removed, including in- 2015–17 | January 2019
school suspension and alternative learning centers.
All students deserve equal
4. Additional resources should be used to hire more access to an excellent
mental-health professionals and teaching assistants K–12 education. The
in high-poverty schools—not to train teachers in quality of their educational
unproven “alternatives to suspension” that may do opportunities shouldn’t
more harm than good. hinge on zip codes, family
backgrounds, or the type
In short, we need to address the disciplinary
of school they attend.
challenges schools are facing—and accept that they
Sadly, due in part to
may take more time and money to overcome—instead
polarizing politics, Ohio
of saddling them with yet another unfunded mandate.
has long underresourced
its public charter schools,
Charter School Performance in Ohio—2019 shortchanging tens of thousands of needy students in
February 2019 the process.
Today, approximately 340 This study, using Ohio funding data from fiscal years
public charter schools 2015–17, reveals that charter schools face massive
educate 105,000 Ohio inequities in funding compared to district schools, the
students. Authored by most troubling of which are found in the
the Center for Research Big Eight cities.
on Education Outcomes
For example, charters located in the Big Eight
(CREDO) at Stanford
received, on average, $10,556 per pupil in total
University, this report
revenue, versus $14,648 for the Big Eight districts.
contains a rigorous
This represents a shortfall of $4,092 per pupil,
analysis of the state’s
equivalent to 28 percent less revenue.
charter schools using data
from 2013–14 through Revenue disparities occur in all four of the Big Eight
2016–17. The analysis compares charter students’ cities in which a closer analysis is conducted. In
academic progress in math and reading to very Cincinnati, charters receive, on average, 32 percent
similar students attending district schools to evaluate less per pupil than Cincinnati City Schools; Columbus
charter impacts. charters receive 23 percent less; Cleveland charters
36 percent less; and Dayton charters 27 percent less.
Among other findings, the study reveals that pupils
attending brick-and-mortar charters make significant When all Ohio charters are included in the analysis—
progress in reading, and African American charter both brick-and-mortar (in and outside of the Big
students enjoy significant gains in both reading and Eight) and online schools—charters experience
math. Based on a 180-day school year, the average revenue shortfalls of $1,867 per pupil, or 16 percent
gain for black charter students is equivalent to less funding relative to the statewide district average.
fifty-nine additional days of learning in reading and Charters in Ohio receive less funding despite
twenty-four extra days in math. educating more disadvantaged students than the
average district.
7 | 2019 FORDHAM SPONSORSHIP ANNUAL REPORT