The Education Gadfly

Charter schools bracing for funding cuts, still seeking parity
Ohio charter schools could face funding cuts of 10 percent, 15 percent, or more in the next biennial budget. But the state budget crisis also will give charters an opportunity to talk about the current financial inequities between them and district schools.

Charters don't have access to local school property or income taxes and it is unlikely charters' minimal access to state facilities dollars will be increased. Charter advocates do hope the General Assembly will at least address charters' lack of access to educational challenge factor funds (ECF). The ECF money, a component of the new evidence-based funding model, adjusts the amount of funding school districts receive in order to provide additional dollars to those districts with a higher proportion of disadvantaged students. However, charter schools, regardless of how disadvantaged a population they serve, do not see this boost in funding.

"That's blatantly discriminatory. We'll take the budget cuts like everyone else but give us the ECF so our urban charter schools can have the same benefit [as urban districts]," said William Sims, president of the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

"Also, charter schools don't get [funding] guarantees if enrollment drops. They don't get guaranteed funding as districts do," he said. "The real question is one the House majority caucus and Rep. Steven Dyer and Rep. Clayton Luckie don't like to hear me say -- we have separate and unequal funding for public school kids in the state."

Although lawmakers are bracing for a financial crisis, neither Sims nor Ron Adler, president of the Ohio Coalition for Quality Education, have received many inquiries from charter schools about the next budget. Administrators are worried about the school year that begins this month, but they'll soon start focusing on the next state budget.

"Everybody is going to be scraping for a small piece of the pie. We're not even getting calls about it. People are not reacting quickly but they're going to have to," Sims said.

"We've always operated on lean budgets. There's no extra fat. No place to go. Charters don't have the luxury to try to get local tax money through a levy," Adler said. "We've done everything required but with 30 percent less."

Comparing Ohio urban charters to the state's Big Eight city districts -- where most charters operate -- shows that while charters may have more schools in the lower performing categories, they also have some of the highest-performing as well. "And a lot of the higher-performing schools are independents. Not the ones run by education management organizations (EMOs)," Sims said.

He said a 10-percent state budget cut, for example, could deal a devastating blow to a high-flying school like Columbus Collegiate Academy, a small school entering its third-year of operation that bested the district's middle schools on state achievement tests last year and is likely to do the same this year. (CCA is authorized by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.)

"My biggest concern is about these high-performing independents, in order to save themselves [they] have to join an EMO or have to put a bullet in their own heads," Sims said.

One move that shows promise is the joining of several independent Cleveland-area charters -- Intergenerational School, Citizens Academy, Entrepreneurship Preparatory School, and Village Preparatory School -- into a non-profit charter management organization called Breakthrough Schools group. The charter management company is headed by former Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. chief executive Alan Rosskamm.

Breakthrough Schools has a preliminary agreement with the Cleveland Metropolitan School District to open three more charter schools in the 2011-12 school year.

The idea is to collaborate to find ways to save money, but Rosskamm said the network also could help philanthropy. "Given the scale of a network of schools, there are certain funders taking us more seriously because they see more chance to grow," he said. "There are limits as to what we can realistically hope to raise. Nonetheless we have a well-developed family of friends and supporters that make me hope they will be there for us. "

The difficult question, even for charter schools with successful fundraising programs, is the long-term funding environment. A one-time request to meet a short-term financial problem is one thing, Rosskamm said, but a sustained 10-percent cut in state funding over multiple years is something else.

So far, the state budget process has been one of political posturing. Serious discussion won't get underway until January -- or until March if Ohioans elect a new governor.

Nationally, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates state budget shortfalls could total $120 billion next year. Deficits, however large, may be ameliorated if Congress approves additional temporary federal funding for the states along the lines of the federal stimulus money that Ohio and many other states used to close gaps in the current two-year budget.

"If there's no supplemental money, there will be cuts across the board," said C. Todd Jones, president Of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio.

What won't be seen in Ohio is anything similar to the proposal by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that the state's charter schools should be held harmless in the next budget round because he considers them a good educational value. Christie has pledged to push for more New Jersey charter schools.

"Under the current political structure, charter schools are always going to be a step child and we have a responsibility to keep reminding people of that," Sims said.

by Mike Lafferty

Comment

———————————————————————————————————————

News & Analysis

Putting charter theories to the test: an examination of student mobility in Dayton
Fordham's hometown of Dayton is famous not only for the Wright Brothers but also for being a school choice mecca. Annually since 2006, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has put Dayton on its top-ten list of charter communities by market share (27 percent of public school kids in the city attend charter schools). Another 1,500 children use a state-funded voucher to attend a private school of their choice.

With more than a third of all children in the city now utilizing school choice, the Gem City is an excellent place to test theories and arguments about charter schools and choice more generally, which is exactly what we've recently done with two theories about charter schools.

The first is a favorite of charter school advocates -- that parents will make sound decisions about schooling and select high-performing schools for their children while shunning low performers. If this theory holds true over time, parents' positive and proactive school selection will lead some schools to improve and weak ones to close as the high performers gain market share. In short, parents will be picky consumers and good schools will thrive while bad schools wither.

The second theory has been promoted by charter school opponents since the first charters opened their doors in the 1990s and holds that charter schools drain public schools of students and resources. Opponents frequently wield this criticism against charters when districts are facing deficits or declining enrollment; in effect, they deflect the conversation about how districts ought to right-size or make cuts by rallying anti-charter sentiments.

Do these shibboleths around charters hold up in Dayton?

Fordham commissioned economist Richard Stock of the Business Research Group at the University of Dayton to analyze student-level data from the Ohio Department of Education and track student movement among schools and across local school districts in Montgomery County from 2005-06 thru 2008-09.

When it comes to Dayton, his findings refute both theories:

There is no evidence that student movement is driven by a decision to attend a better-performing school. In fact, according to the data analyzed by Stock, students who move from a low-rated school are more likely to move to a school with an equal or lower rating than would be expected if the students were moving at random.
There is no evidence that district students are moving to charter schools at high rates. Instead, mobile students are moving outside of Montgomery County or disappearing from the system altogether. Over the last four years there has been little overall movement of students from district schools to charter schools. Further, there is no evidence that charter schools are gaining or losing higher-performing students -- evidence that at least among the most mobile student population, charters aren't "creaming" the best students. In Dayton, school movers actually have significantly lower reading scores than do non-school movers. The single greatest indicator of whether a child is likely to move from school-to-school is his or her reading score on the state achievement test. The lower the score, the more mobile the child.

These findings from Dayton dispel commonly touted notions from both charter advocates and foes, and point to another cause for concern: outstanding levels of mobility among disadvantaged kids that have an adverse impact on their educational outcomes. The findings also serve as a reminder of the need for more such data to test ideas about the impact of school choice, and to add concrete evidence to the rhetoric so that policy decisions can be well-informed.

See the Dayton Daily News' coverage of this research here.

by Terry Ryan

Comment

———————————————————————————————————————

Capital Matters

Substantial savings possible by increasing student-teacher ratios
Ohio's faces an unprecedented $8 billion budget deficit next year. With 40 percent of state revenue invested in K-12 education, Ohio's public schools will surely have to endure a fair share of the cuts. To his credit, Governor Strickland has taken action, asking the Cincinnati-based KnowledgeWorks Foundation to investigate options for cost-savings and efficiencies in education. One area that should be examined closely is student-teacher ratios, as upward of two-thirds of district spending goes toward staff salaries and benefits.

Current state law calls for ratios no larger than 25 students per teacher (though the governor's education reform plan, passed into law last summer, aims to lower the ratio in kindergarten through third grade to 15:1 over the next several years). In practice, however, average student-teacher ratios don't fall anywhere close to the state maximum. Just a handful of Ohio districts have a ratio higher than 25:1 and more than half have ratios below 18:1.

My colleagues and I analyzed average student-teacher ratio, enrollment, and teacher salary data for local school districts that the state education department makes publicly available. We wanted to know what the financial impact of increasing student-teacher ratios might be -- especially if ratios were increased by just a few students. How much money could really be saved? Would the state and local school districts see a sizeable difference in their bottom line?

Here is what we found:

If every district in the Buckeye State raised its average student-teacher ratio by one student (e.g., from 16:1 to 17:1), there is a potential statewide savings of $276 million in teacher salaries alone.
If the districts with ratios lower than 20:1 raised theirs to that level, the state could save $458 million in teacher salaries.
If the districts with ratios lower than 22:1 raised theirs to that level, the state could save $848 million in teacher salaries.
If every district in the state operated at an average 25:1 student-teacher ratio, the state could save $1.38 billion in teacher salaries alone.

This is a simple analysis to be sure. Many factors impact student-teacher ratios and aren't fully accounted for here, from districts classifying administrative staff as teachers for reporting purposes to the increasing number of intervention specialists needed to serve students with special needs to the requirement that Title I elementary schools maintain very small class sizes.

But it can't be denied that making a small increase in the number of students that teachers serve could give the state, and local districts, real fiscal relief. When you consider the fringe benefits, professional development needs, and retirement costs that go along with each teacher, the potential savings would be even greater. Further, these are savings that could be realized almost immediately, as opposed to other suggestions that will take time to phase in, like the increased use of technology to provide instruction.

At the district level, the savings become even starker. Take Bexley, a suburban Columbus district which is asking voters for an additional $3 million per year on November 2. Bexley's reported student-teacher ratio, for the most recent year data are available, is just over 16:1. Increasing it to 20:1 would realize up to $1.8 million per year in savings in teacher salaries alone. Boosting it to 22:1 would save $2.4 million -- just $600,000 shy of what voters are being asked to support.

The situation is similar in Oakwood, a district outside Dayton which is asking voters for an additional $1.8 million per year. Oakwood's average student-teacher ratio is just under 16:1.Increasing it to 18:1 would realize about $996,000 per year in savings in teacher salaries alone. Boosting it to 20:1 would save $1.7 million annually -- $100,000 shy of the levy request.

There are surely similar examples across the state -- districts that are essentially sitting, perhaps unknowingly, on a pot of money that could ameliorate their fiscal pain with little to no actual impact on student learning.

Advocates of smaller class sizes won't be happy with any recommendation to put more kids in a classroom. But research shows that good teachers can be just as effective with 21 or 23 students as they can with 15 or 18, especially in grades four and up.

There are obviously clear losers in this scenario. Increasing student-teacher ratios means fewer teaching jobs. But when the state is facing a mammoth budget deficit and is trimming off tiny expenditures at every corner, we have to consider all opportunities for larger potential savings.

This article originally appeared in the Columbus Dispatch.

by Emmy L. Partin

Comment

How top-heavy are Ohio's school districts?
Earlier this year the Brookings Institution and the Greater Ohio Policy Center garnered attention from both gubernatorial candidates for their suggestion in the Restoring Prosperity report that smaller Ohio school districts consolidate. Despite typically having negative connotations, consolidation came across as a pragmatic rather than ominous idea. That's because, according to Brookings, Ohio spends 49 percent more on district administration than the national average. It ranks 47th in the level of spending that makes it into K-12 classroom, but ninth in terms of money spent on administration.

A few districts have experimented with consolidating administrative positions. Two Bexley schools -- the district's middle and high school -- will have just one principal next year (with assistant principals at each school), a move that will save $100,000. And several years ago, Rittman Exempted Village School District and Orville City School District (in Wayne County) merged their top administrative staffs to realize $270,000 in annual savings. A previous Ohio Gadfly analysis estimated that if school districts with fewer than 1,700 pupils consolidated a few administrative roles it could result in up to $40 million in savings. These numbers are important when one consider that of Ohio's current 613 districts, half serve fewer than 1,300 students -- the size of many high schools.

But can Ohio districts really thin out their central offices, or is there a critical mass of administrative staff toward which most Ohio districts converge out of necessity? How many administrators do districts actually employ, and how much do they spend on them? And do these patterns vary according to district size? We examined student-administrator* ratios and the amount spent on administrators as a percent of total expenditures in all Ohio districts for which the data were available, and broke down the data to see if patterns emerge according to district size. Here's what we found.

The average student-administrator ratio is 150.2, with the most top-heavy district (Bettsville Local) at 37.4 students per administrator and the leanest (New Albany-Plain Local) at 308.6.

Graph I: Average student-admin ratios in Ohio districts, by size (2008)

Source: FY 2009 Cupp Report, Ohio Department of Education.

As graph I illustrates, the workload for each administrator (as measured by student-administrator ratio) grows with district size up until the largest category of districts with 15,000 or more students (of which Ohio has very few, actually). The smallest districts, those with less than 1,000 students, have nearly 100 fewer pupils per administrator than the leanest districts.

That the largest districts experience a drop in average student-administrator ratio actually makes sense. Large districts -- especially urban ones - experience unique management challenges, more complicated and overlapping funding, and a level of performance data tracking that probably justifies extra staff support.

The same findings hold true when comparing spending patterns on administrators, which ranked from 7.3 percent in the leanest district and 21.9 percent at the high end. When broken down by size, we observed a similar pattern-- the larger the district, the more "lean" -- up until a point. (View this graph on Flypaper.)

It's worth noting that the size of district administrative staffs may in fact be higher than reported by this analysis, as it's commonly purported that districts and schools "hide" administrators in teaching positions instead of reporting them appropriately.

It's also worth pointing out that while $40 million in savings is significant, true savings potential from staffing reductions -- the likes of which will address Ohio's impending $6 to $8 billion deficit -- will only be realized by curbing the number of teachers. (See piece above.)

Unfortunately, increasing student-teacher ratios is not the most politically palatable idea, and Ohio leaders are more likely to gravitate toward a piecemeal approach to savings. Consolidating administrative positions -- especially within and across Ohio's smallest districts--represents one cost savings opportunity that won't wreak havoc on student performance and could garner bipartisan support.

* Note: "Administrator" is defined broadly in this data and differs from the definition in Restoring Prosperity. This definition is based on state-defined classifications that include: 100-Official/Administrative; 101-Administratoristrative Assistant; 102-Assistant, Deputy/Associate Superintendent; 104-Assistant Principal; 107-Ombudsman; 108-Principal; 109-Superintendent; 110-Supervising/managing/directing assignment; 111-Tax assessing/collecting assignment; 112-Treasurer; 113-Coordinator; 114-Education Administrative Specialist; 115-Director; 116-Community school administrator; 199-Other official/administrative.

by Jamie Davies O'Leary and Bianca Speranza

Comment

———————————————————————————————————————

Flypaper's Finest

Low-performing schools need more than self-help jargon, by Jamie Davies O'Leary
Have you ever wanted to grow your "emotional intelligence including managing your gremlin," while receiving training in "resilience" or "creativity"? You might want to check out LifeTrek Inc., a life and career coaching company run by a couple out of their Virginia home.... There is something terribly wrong with folks in this line of work marketing their services in search of big bucks from school turnarounds.... NYTimes reports that Ohio has put the center on its list of approved school turnaround specialists, despite that fact that the organization has zero experience in transforming schools.Read the full post here.

Hundreds of Ohio students on EdChoice Scholarship (voucher) waiting list, by Bianca Speranza
Since its creation in 2005, Ohio's EdChoice Scholarship Program -- which grants $4,250 or $5,000 to students attending the state's worst schools to attend the private school of their choice -- has provided scholarships to all eligible students that apply. But this year the number of applicants exceeded the available number of slots (14,000), and it's the first year that some students attending "D" or "F" schools and seeking an alternative will be denied. Findings from a recent analysis of DC's voucher program could give reason for lifting Ohio's voucher cap. Read more here.

————————————————————————————————————————

Short Reviews

Strategic Communications for Portfolio School District Reform
Sam Sperry, Center on Reinventing Public Education
July 2010

This working paper by the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) discusses the diverse needs of three "portfolio" school districts -- Denver, New York, and New Orleans -- when it comes to communications and marketing practices.

Portfolio districts -- which manage a "portfolio" of various types of schools, give school leaders great operational freedom over their schools, and hold schools accountable for academic performance -- face marketing needs that are unique to each district's context. The paper draws on interview data from communications personnel in the three districts and comes up with techniques to improve marketing and communications for other districts considering a portfolio approach, such as:

Have solid messaging focused on academic improvement and results (and good "messengers"). Portfolio districts are focused on growing schools that work and closing those that don't, and this can create messy PR scenarios. The paper recommends that districts be honest and stay centered in the core message that children deserve better options.
Demonstrate success with concrete numbers. Point to increases in proficiency, graduation rates, student growth, etc. but also put a human face on the numbers so the message of school improvement is more compelling.
Know the audience. The paper spells out the importance of stratifying communications with various groups like the media, the teachers themselves (many of whom may be skeptical of new reforms), parents and the community, etc. as well as having the right personnel in place to handle communications.

Just as the management of schools in portfolio districts is less rigid, so are the strategies discussed in this paper, which in some places reads more like personal advice from a friend than a policy paper. But the importance of this topic should not be overlooked, as portfolio districts often face complex and controversial reform issues and must demonstrate their success in ways that traditional districts don't have to.

Portfolio districts oversee a diverse mix of schools -- most of which are more autonomous than traditional district schools -- and are defined by a sense of urgency to lift achievement and ensure that all schools continually improve (or get phased out). This complexity requires more than just basic communication strategies. This paper might be useful for anyone interested in portfolio districts or even other alternative (and high-stakes) schooling environments such as school turnarounds. Read it here.

by Theda Sampson

Comment

Embracing System Reform: Lessons from Five Award-Winning Schools
Heather Zavadsky, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
July 2010

In this AEI policy paperHeather Zavadsky highlights five urban districts (also showcased in her book, Bringing School Reform to Scale) that are models of systemic, district-wide reforms. All five have won the Broad Prize for Urban Education for their ability to implement reform across the entire district, not just among failing schools.

They are: Aldine Independent School District in Texas; Boston Public Schools in Massachusetts; Garden Grove Unified School District in Los Angeles; Long Beach Unified School District in California; and Norfolk Public Schools in Virginia. While all these schools operate within varying policy, organizational, and community contexts, they faced similar challenges in lifting student achievement.

All five serve large percentages of minority populations, low-income students, English language learners. So how did these large urban districts serving some of the highest "at-risk" student populations succeed in outperforming their home states on multiple assessments? Zavadskly highlights key components of their success.

Aldine Independent School District and Long Beach Unified School District attribute their high performance to aligning curriculum vertically among all grades (pre-kindergarten through 12) and horizontally across all schools within the district. This change ensured their highly mobile student body would be taught the same curriculum at any school they attended (an important lesson for districts like Dayton that experience high levels of student mobility). Boston Public Schools redefined key leaders' roles, reconstructed its HR department, and increased its use of data, creating clear goals and expectations for staff, students, and parents. Norfolk Public Schools also found success district wide by redesigning district curriculum (such as by reducing 24 reading programs down to one) and implementing a classroom-based professional development program to improve teachers' capacity to deliver the instructional program.

The experience of these five districts proves that education reform can be scaled to the district level, although there's no doubt that such reforms are difficult to replicate elsewhere. Still, the report offers multiple ideas for Ohio districts seeking wholesale reform. To read more about the experience of these award-winning districts read the entire article here.

by Whitney Gilbert

Comment

2010 KIDS COUNT Data Book
Annie E. Casey Foundation
July 2010

The Annie E. Casey Foundation recently released its annual Kids Count Data Book, an analysis of various indicators related to child/youth wellbeing, such as infant mortality rates, teen birth rates, and the number of teens not enrolled in high school.

Unemployment is on the rise (10.5 percent in Ohio) and states are facing budget cuts resulting in less money for things such as healthcare and education (for the Buckeye State, the deficit will be $8 billion). Given that the data for this report come from the year 2007, before the economic meltdown occurred, current statistics related to child wellbeing are probably even more dire.

After collecting data for ten key indicators and coming up with a raw composite score, the report ranks Ohio 29th in terms of overall child well being, down one spot from 2009. The findings have several implications for the state of Ohio as a whole, and for the education of our children.

Take teen birth rate for example, which is calculated by looking at births per 1,000 females ages 15--19. The national average is 43; Ohio comes in just below that at 41 births per 1,000. Significant numbers of teen births have a tangible impact on K-12 education as babies born to teen mothers are often born into homes with fewer resources to spend on education, and because teen mothers often may not attend college or even finish high school. Consequently, children may come to school behind their peers and face educational challenges, which in turn present challenges to schools and teachers.

Another telling statistic outlined by Kids Count is the number of teens not in high school and "not a high school graduate." Ohio has 5 percent of teens not in high school and not a high school graduate. Even though Ohio fares better than many states in this category (40 other states have higher percentages of teens not in school), it's imperative that our young people obtain the necessary skills to be gainfully employed. Graduating from high school is absolutely crucial to go on to achieve post- secondary education and to contribute to our state's economy.

Another stark figure is the percentage of children living in poverty: In Ohio 19 percent of children live in poverty, compared to the national average of 18 percent. Children who grow up in poverty will be more prone to undesirable outcomes in school, and economic instability later on in life.

The future success of our nation depends on how well our children are provided for and the ability they have to flourish. These numbers illustrate there is still a great deal of room for improvement when it comes to the wellbeing of our children in Ohio and nationally.

To check out the complete report and see how your state stacks up click here.

by Bianca Speranza

Comment

————————————————————————————————————————

Editor's Extras

Back in my day, college students studied more (this isn't a cranky anecdote -- it's true)

Think your college student is holed up in the library, studying away for dozens of hours? Think again. According to a recent policy brief by AEI there has been a dramatic decrease in student study time since the 1960s. In 1961 the average student at a four-year university studied about twenty hours a week. Fast forward fifty years and students are studying only fourteen hours a week! To check out the complete report, possible explanations for the decline in study time, and what this means for our students, click here.
The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) recently released its second analysis of states' Race to the Top applications. Ohio is among 19 finalists in round two (and in fact presented to reviewers just yesterday) and has $400 million at stake in the competition. NCTQ ranks Ohio poorly, however, because the state is "non-committal" when it comes to denoting how much student performance will weigh into revamped teacher evaluations, and because the state made several components of its application optional for districts. Find out more about Ohio and how other states stack up in the competition here.
Parents might want to double check their children's school supply list before heading out to the store. According to an article in the Columbus Dispatch many schools are becoming very specific not just when it comes to what students need to bring to class, but also in the brands of supplies. When all is said and done, parents of elementary school children can expect to pay around $110 on supplies.
For many children summer means going to camp and hanging out at the pool. But does this have an impact on their reading skills? A recent study by researchers at the University of Tennessee examined the impact of reading during the summer months and found that children who had access to books and read them during the summer scored significantly higher than their counterparts who didn't open a book during the summer. Perhaps surprising is the fact that it didn't matter what type of book these students read, just that they were reading. Researchers found that a majority of these students were reading non-education related materials such as the biography of Britney Spears. Gadfly's not a fan, but hey -- if it raises reading tests scores -- we'll excuse it.

by Bianca Speranza

Comment

————————————————————————————————————————

Announcements

Think Tank + Sponsoring Charter Schools = Harder Than It Looks
Don't miss another vigorous, frank, and eye-opening discussion of Fordham's own experience authorizing charter schools in Ohio--and how that compares to authorizing elsewhere. Join us Thursday, August 26 from 3:30 to 5:00 pm in Fordham's DC office (1016 16th St. NW, 7th Floor), where Fordham Vice President of Ohio Programs & Policy and co-author of Ohio's Education Reform Challenges: Lessons from the Frontlines Terry Ryan will discuss Fordham's experience as an authorizer of charter schools on-the-ground in Ohio. Fordham President Chester E. Finn, Jr. (and co-author) will moderate the discussion, and comments will follow from Greg Richmond, Joey Gustafson and Perry White, all folks with extensive experience in the charter world.

Please RSVP to [email protected] or 202-223-5452.

PLEASE NOTE: If you're not up for trekking to DC for this one, the event will be WEBCAST nationwide. There is no need to sign up for the webcast -- simply visit www.edexcellence.net as the event begins, and click on the event link. Members of the webcast audience who would like to submit questions during the event can email them to [email protected].

————————————————————————————————————————

About Us

The Ohio Education Gadfly is published bi-weekly (ordinarily on Wednesdays, with occasional breaks, and in special editions) by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Have something to say? Email the editor at [email protected]. Would you like to be spared from the Gadfly? Email [email protected] with "unsubscribe gadfly" in the text of your message. You are welcome to forward the Gadfly to others, and from our website you can even email individual articles. If you have been forwarded a copy of Gadfly and would like to subscribe, you may email [email protected] with "subscribe gadfly" in the text of the message. To read archived issues, go to our website and click on the Ohio Education Gadfly link. Aching for still more education news and analysis? Check out the original Education Gadfly.

Nationally and in Ohio, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, along with its sister organization the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, strives to close America's vexing achievement gaps by raising standards, strengthening accountability, and expanding high-quality education options for parents and families. As a charter-school sponsor in Ohio, the Foundation joins with schools to affirm a relentless commitment to high expectations for all children, accountability for academic results, and transparency and organizational integrity, while freeing the schools to operate with minimal red tape. The Foundation and Institute are neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.