There are three common criticisms of charter schools in Ohio that are pure fiction but have been repeated so often that they have come to be seen as common knowledge. But common knowledge that can't be verified is just myth.
The most persistent and oft-repeated myth critical of charter schools is that they have failed to improve the academic performance of their students. Lobbyists from government-run schools, including representatives of teacher unions and school boards, have selectively used test scores to denigrate their newfound competitors, charter schools.
But there are several serious flaws in simply comparing raw test scores, as anti-charter advocates have done. Most, if not all of the comparisons are misleading, meaningless, or both. The reason: They typically do not account for differences in student population or school mission, or the dynamics of student performance over time.
In our recently released policy brief, we analyzed the changes in the percentage of students passing each section of the Ohio Proficiency Test, or OPT, for traditional public schools and the charter schools located in the Big Eight urban districts (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown) between 2002 and 2004. Using a statistical analysis that controlled for the demographic characteristics of race and income, the study revealed that charter schools outperform their traditional public school peers in 6 of 11 categories and perform just as well in the other 5. In no case did charters perform worse than their traditional school counterparts. Moreover, we found evidence that the academic achievement of traditional schools was enhanced by competition from charter schools.
A second myth surrounding charter schools is that they 'drain' much needed resources from already under-funded schools.
Last year the Buckeye Institute conducted an analysis of the financial impact of charter schools on the Big Eight urban districts. We found that the traditional public schools actually benefit financially from the introduction of charter schools. This is because of an important but distressingly under-reported fact: Community schools do not have access to local property- or income -tax dollars. Only the state share of the dollars allotted to each student is allowed to leave the district for the community school along with the student. Tax dollars generated locally stay with the traditional school, even when the student does not.
The result is that for every student who attends a community school, the per-pupil revenues for the traditional school actually increase. Seven of the big eight urban districts have seen their per-pupil revenues rise, not fall, as community school enrollment has increased.
The third myth about charter schools is that they are unaccountable to taxpayers. But here is the very simple and straightforward fact that opponents of charter schools wish the public would forget: Charter schools are public schools and as such are fully and completely a part of Ohio's public school system. Charter foes have been able to play off the confusion over the status of charter schools that has arisen because they are run by non-profit organizations, some of which are components of larger for-profit operations.
Far from being unaccountable, charter schools are more accountable for performance than traditional public schools. Every charter school has an authorizer, a public institution held accountable by the Ohio Department of Education. The authorizer grants a charter to the school, and then ensures that it complies with the agreement. The school answers to three authorities, then: the parents who select the school, the authorizing agency, and the Department of Education. No traditional public school faces a similar level of direct accountability.
These three myths have done considerable damage to the reputation of all charter schools in Ohio. They have also affected the direction of education reform policy in our state for far too long. If our goal is to create a better system for educating our children, we would all do well to dispose of these myths and start with a more honest assessment of the current situation. Only then will we be able to make the kind of progress in education that we need to make.