ODE HQ2.png

The Ohio Department of Education isn't answering questions about apparent "discrepancies and inconsistencies" in its review of charter school oversight last year.

(Ohio Department of Education)

CLEVELAND, Ohio - The state is blocking the Cleveland school district from helping any new charter schools start in the city, partly for not following the rules for things it wasn't even doing.

The Ohio Department of Education is refusing to answer questions from The Plain Dealer about why its review last year of the district's charter school oversight work penalizes the district for technical violations of rules that do not even apply to the district.

And though the district spelled out details of these "discrepancies and inconsistencies" in a six-page letter late last year, the department has declined to explain its ruling in writing.

See the letter below.

The dispute is over the charter school oversight ratings the department released in the fall.

The reviews are designed to encourage charter school "sponsors" - organizations like non-profits or districts that oversee the schools - to do a better job. But these new ratings have been mired in controversy. The department broke state law in its first ratings in 2015 by excluding failing grades for online schools to make some sponsors look better.

In issuing new, supposedly accurate and fair ratings this fall, the department scored the Cleveland school district's charter school oversight as "ineffective," partly because of low test scores and partly because of how the district performs its oversight.

That rating triggered a penalty blocking the district from overseeing any new schools until it resolves its shortcomings and improves. That rating also put the district on a three-year clock to improve its oversight or have all 11 schools it oversees taken away.

If the issues in question are fixed quickly, a better rating next fall will eliminate the penalties.

But the district says the rating and the block - even temporary - on sponsoring new schools is unfair.

Its score fell just a few points short of an "effective" rating that would have allowed its partnership with charter schools in the city to keep growing. And it found a few places where it lost points for technicalities that, it claimed in its letter to the state, should not have even counted.

Among them:

- The state penalized the district for not meeting terms of its probation. But the district wasn't even on probation.

- It penalized the district for not following rules for overseeing online schools. But the district doesn't oversee any online schools.

- And it penalized the district for its handling of decisions on whether to extend operations of charter schools or whether to close them. But all of the charters overseen by the district were in the middle of multi-year contracts and the district made no such decisions in the review period.

"Those items did not apply to us as a sponsor last year," the district said in its letter.

It added: "If we receive credit for these items...that would bump our overall score from 'ineffective' to 'effective'."

After hearing from the district and others about the e-school issue, the state removed Cleveland's penalty for that item, but not the others.

ODE spokesperson Brittany Halpin declined to say why.

"Cleveland's sponsor rating stands as 'ineffective'," she said, providing only a list of rules and regulations.

Part of the issue appears to be how the district filled out state evaluation forms asking about the issues in question - if it had complied with the terms of its probation, for overseeing e-schools and for extending or ending charter school operations. The district's letter states that it marked these items N/A - not applicable - but the state may have wanted it to respond with a "yes."

Halpin declined to say which answer was required.

In addition, though the department already knows what sponsors it has on probation, which e-schools it pays for and if contracts are changed for any schools, it appears to have required sponsors to submit letters certifying that items do not apply

Halpin declined to say why the state requires sponsors to fill out paperwork on items the department already knows.

The district's letter outlines several instances in which sponsors were scored differently based on replying with "yes" instead of "N/A" and even instances where different sponsors provided the same answer and documentation but were scored differently.

For example, the letter points to ODE documents showing that the district and Bowling Green State University had the same answer and document submissions for the probation item, but Cleveland was penalized and Bowling Green not.

Halpin declined to explain that scoring.

On the contract renewal/termination item, Cleveland had the same responses and documentation as other districts, but Cleveland lost points and others didn't.

Details of the district's concerns are spelled out in its letter to the state last year, obtained by The Plain Dealer through a public records request. District spokesperson Roseann Canfora has not responded to requests for comment on the state's handling of its concerns.

It is not entitled to a full appeal hearing, which the state is allowing only for sponsors rated as "poor," the lowest rating. The state is also not allowing sponsors to re-submit documentation to correct errors.

The Plain Dealer will follow the appeals of the "poor" sponsors as they develop.