In 2017, an essay published by Columbus Navigator described Ohio’s charter school sector as “the complete and utter failure,” arguing that the state was sending close to a billion dollars annually to charter schools while traditional districts struggled to pass local levies to sustain basic services. The piece reflected a moment of intense public frustration following years of scandals, weak academic performance, and mounting questions about oversight.
Now, nearly a decade later, the question is unavoidable: has anything fundamentally changed?
Read the original 2017 article here:
https://www.columbusnavigator.com/complete-failure-ohio-charter-schools/
The ECOT reckoning
If one were to mark a turning point, it would be the collapse of the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, better known as ECOT. At its peak, ECOT was one of the largest online charter schools in the country. State investigations concluded that the school had been overpaid for thousands of students whose participation did not meet attendance requirements. In 2018, ECOT shut down after being ordered to repay tens of millions of dollars. Subsequent findings for recovery from the Ohio Auditor of State exceeded $100 million tied to overpayments.
The episode was widely reported, including by Mother Jones, which detailed how the school collected nearly $1 billion in public funds over two decades while posting graduation rates often below 40 percent. State audits and court rulings later affirmed the Department of Education’s authority to verify participation and demand repayment.
The closure of ECOT did demonstrate that Ohio regulators, eventually, could act. But it also underscored how long weak oversight can persist before corrective measures are taken.
Oversight reforms, with limits
In response to a string of failures, Ohio lawmakers enacted reforms intended to tighten sponsor accountability and increase financial transparency. The state revised its sponsor evaluation system and strengthened performance based closure standards. According to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce’s annual Community Schools report, sponsors are now evaluated on academic performance, compliance, and quality practices.
Yet critics note that structural vulnerabilities remain. Charter schools in Ohio may contract with for profit management organizations for operations, curriculum, and facilities. While the governing boards themselves must operate as nonprofits, the management layer can involve private vendors receiving substantial public funds. State annual reports acknowledge this operator model explicitly.
Supporters argue that this flexibility encourages innovation and choice. Skeptics counter that it can blur accountability lines and complicate transparency, especially when public dollars flow through layered contracts that are difficult for parents and taxpayers to fully scrutinize.
Even pro charter policy groups have expressed concern when legislative amendments have temporarily paused sponsor accountability measures. That tension suggests that oversight remains politically sensitive rather than permanently institutionalized.
Academic outcomes: progress or plateau?
Academic performance data in Ohio’s charter sector shows variation. Some urban charter schools outperform surrounding district schools on certain measures. However, statewide analyses continue to show that, on average, charter schools perform similarly to or below traditional districts when controlling for student demographics, according to long running research from Stanford University’s CREDO institute and Ohio state report cards.
The larger structural concern raised in 2017 remains unresolved: when funding follows students out of district schools, districts retain many fixed costs such as transportation, facilities, and specialized services. The Ohio Department of Education’s own reporting confirms that community schools receive state and federal funds but no local property tax revenue. That means state dollars shift systems, while local taxpayers continue to finance district infrastructure.
In communities already under financial strain, this dynamic can amplify instability.
Political influence and public trust
The 2017 critique also focused on the political environment that allowed troubled schools to persist. Public records show that charter operators and associated entities were significant political donors during the height of the sector’s expansion. While campaign contributions are legal, they fueled public perception that enforcement was delayed by political alliances.
Since ECOT’s closure, enforcement actions have been more visible. Yet restoring public trust requires not only action after failure but systems designed to prevent failure from scaling in the first place.
So, has anything changed?
Yes, in measurable ways. Ohio’s most notorious charter school is gone. Sponsor evaluations are more formalized. Participation verification rules for online schools are clearer. Recovery efforts have demonstrated that the state can claw back funds when overpayments occur.
But the foundational structure remains largely intact. Charter schools continue to operate within a hybrid governance model that blends public funding with private management flexibility. Funding still shifts from districts when students transfer. Legislative debates still revisit oversight mechanisms. And academic results remain uneven.
The question today is not whether reform happened, but whether it went far enough to prevent the next large scale failure.
Public education advocates argue that stability, transparency, and democratic governance remain the strongest safeguards for students and taxpayers. Charter supporters maintain that choice and competition drive improvement.
Nearly ten years after the “complete failure” label was applied, Ohio’s charter sector is no longer in the crisis headlines. But whether it has fundamentally resolved the systemic concerns raised in 2017 is a question that remains open.
Photo Credit: Joe Deptowicz – Unsplash.com