Ohio Urban School Performance Report for 2009-10
Author: Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Urban Schools,Charter Schools,State Standards,Low Achievement,High Achievement,Scores,Achievement Gains,Public Education,Public Schools,Comparative Analysis,Educational Assessment,Educational Indicators,Trend Analysis,Achievement Rating,Accountability,State Surveys

With the release of Ohio's state test score data each August, one recurring question is how well have the state's large sector of charter schools performed relative to their counterparts in traditional districts? The Thomas B. Fordham Institute commissioned Public Impact to conduct an analysis of the 2009-10 data in this report. Using public academic performance data from the Ohio Department of Education, the analysts compared the performance of urban public charter schools with that of non-charter public district schools in the state's eight major urban cities, the &quot;Ohio 8&quot; (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown), where most brick-and-mortar charter schools reside. Separately, they compared the performance of charter e-schools (also called virtual schools) with that of non-charter public schools statewide. The analysis examined both &quot;growth&quot; (based on how much students learned over the school year) and &quot;achievement&quot; (based on the percentage of students meeting state standards). Among the key takeaways include: (1) Only two percent of charters and two percent of district schools had high growth and high achievement--an even lower percentage than last year; (2) Among schools with low achievement and low growth in 2007-08, charters were far more likely to improve by 2009-10, with 23 percent showing enough improvement to make moderate achievement and above expected growth, compared with only two percent of district schools; (3) Urban charter schools had a slightly higher percentage of students scoring proficient on state tests in reading and math (for the first time since 2005-06); (4) In both Cleveland and Dayton, charters outperformed their district counterparts. In Columbus, district and charter results were comparable. In the other five cities, district schools outperformed charters; (5) A significantly higher percentage of urban district schools received the state's highest ratings (Effective, Excellent, and Excellent with Distinction): 43 percent compared with 20 percent of charter schools. And a higher percentage of charters received the state's lowest ratings (Academic Watch and Academic Emergency): 49 percent of charter schools, compared with 34 percent of district schools; (6) Urban charter schools showed stronger value-added growth than their district counterparts, with 79 percent of charters making expected or above expected growth in reading, compared with 68 percent of district schools; and (7) Among the state's growing number of e-schools, smaller e-schools (those serving fewer than 500 students) made significant gains in academic achievement in reading and math, largely closing the gap between their performance and that of larger e-schools. Appendices include: (1) District-by-District Performance and Growth; and (2) Methodology. (Contains 1 table, 25 charts, and 1 footnote.) [This report was prepared by Public Impact.