As we await the official release of the 2011 Ohio school report card data due tomorrow, we were looking over the 2009/2010 data and a question occurred.
Here's the breakdown of charter school performance in Ohio, taken from the ODE community Schools rating table
| Designation | Total | Percentage |
| Academic Emergency | 76 | 23.8% |
| Academic Watch | 53 | 16.6% |
| Continuous Improvement | 97 | 30.4% |
| Effective | 32 | 10.0% |
| Excellent | 27 | 8.5% |
| Excellent with Distinction | 1 | 0.3% |
| Not Rated | 33 | 10.3% |
| Grand Total | 319 | 100% |
Here's the question. If charter schools can;
- Compensate their teachers based on any criteria they choose since they are unencumbered by a union contract (ie merit pay)
- Employ teachers without offering a continuing contract (ie tenure)
- Fire or lay off teachers for any performance based criteria without need to follow a union contract (ie no seniority)
- Avoid class size limits created by a union contract
- Be free to impose any legal work place restrictions or rules they wish
- Be unencumbered by any union contract provision and be free from a whole host of regulations
Why is it that their performance is so darn terrible (over 70% are less than effective!) as to be embarrassing even though they have been operating with SB5 like "tools" for years?
Why would anyone think applying these SB5 "tools" to traditional public schools will have any positive impact when we have evidence that when they are applied to charter schools the results are disastrous for students, teachers and the local school districts.? Can anyone answer that?