Contemporary education reform movements in the United States have emphasized accountability for student performance. Policy actors serving within the executive branch have arguably gained power in part to provide this accountability function. The present study, in which Ohio and Pennsylvania serve as state case contexts, examines the changing education policy role of executive-level state auditors. Findings indicate their powers have expanded considerably between 2005 and 2017, with expansion attributable to four main factors: the proliferation of brick-and-mortar and online charter schools, auditors’ political motivations, auditors’ ability to conduct performance audits, and state legislatures’ reliance on auditors to provide oversight.
AhnJ.McEachinA. (2017). Student enrollment patterns and achievement in Ohio’s online charter schools. Educational Researcher, 46, 44-57.
3.
BerendsM. (2015). Sociology and school choice: What we know after two decades of charter schools. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 159-180.
4.
BerendsM.ZottolaG. (2009). Social perspectives on school choice. In BerendsM.SpringerM.BallouD.WalbergH. (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (pp. 35-54). New York, NY: Routledge.
ChingosM. M.SchwerdtG. (2014). Virtual schooling and student learning: Evidence from the Florida Virtual School. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School.
8.
ChingosM. M.WestM. R. (2015). The uneven performance of Arizona’s charter schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1 Suppl.), 120S-134S. doi:10.3102/0162373715576077
9.
ClarkM. A.GleasonP. M.TuttleC. C.SilverbergM. K. (2015). Do charter schools improve student achievement?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 419-436. doi:10.3102/0162373714558292
10.
DeBray-PelotE. (2007). Dismantling education’s “iron triangle”: Institutional relationships in the formation of federal education policy between 1998 and 2001. In KaestleC.LodewickA. (Eds.), To educate a nation: Federal and national strategies of school reform (pp. 64-89). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
11.
DeJarnattS. (2013). Keep following the money: Financial accountability and governance of cyber charter schools. Urban Lawyer, 45, 915-951.
12.
Education Commission of the States. (2016). State policy database. Available from www.ecs.org
13.
ErtasN.RochC. H. (2014). Charter schools, equity, and student enrollments: The role of for-profit educational management organizations. Education and Urban Society, 46, 548-579. doi:10.1177/0013124512458118
14.
FinnC. E.FairchildD. R. (2012). Introduction: Overcoming the obstacles to digital learning. In FinnC. E.FairchildD. R. (Eds.), Education reform for the digital era (pp. 1-10). Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Available from www.edexcellencemedia.net
15.
FowlerF. C. (2000). Converging forces: Understanding the growth of state authority over education. In TheobaldN. D.MalinB. (Eds.), Balancing local control and state responsibility for K-12 education (pp. 123-146). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
16.
GarciaD.BarberR.MolnarA. (2009). Profiting from public education: Education managements organizations and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 111, 1352-1379.
Hasler-WatersL.BarbourM.MenchacaM. (2014). The nature of online charter schools: Evolution and emerging concerns. Educational Technology & Society, 17, 379-389.
19.
Hearing before the Committee on Education, Ohio House of Representatives, 131st Ohio General Assembly. (Testimony of Ohio Auditor of State David Yost) (2015).
20.
HeckR. H. (2004). Studying educational and social policy: Theoretical concepts and research methods. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
21.
HeisselJ. (2016). The relative benefits of live versus online delivery: Evidence from virtual algebra I in North Carolina. Economics of Education Review, 53, 99-115.
22.
HenigJ. (2013). The end of exceptionalism in American education: The changing politics of school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
23.
HentschkeG. C. (2017). A brief and future history of school choice. In FoxR. A.BuchananN. K. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of school choice (pp. 28-43). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
24.
HeroldB.HarwinA. (2017, March7). Student login records at Ohio E-Schools spark $80 million dispute. Education Week, 36(24), 1-13. Available from www.edweek.org
25.
HerriottR. E.FirestoneW. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12(2), 14-19.
26.
HsiehH. F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.
27.
HurshD. (2005). Neo-liberalism, markets and accountability: Transforming education and undermining democracy in the United States and England. Policy Futures in Education, 3, 3-15.
28.
KirstM. W.WirtF. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
29.
KotokS.FrankenbergE.SchafftK. A.MannB. A.FullerE. J. (2015). School choice, racial segregation, and poverty concentration: Evidence from Pennsylvania charter school transfers. Educational Policy, 25, 1-23. doi:10.1177/0895904815604112
30.
LouisK. S.FebeyK.GordonM.MeathJ.ThomasE. (2006). Educational leadership in the states: A cultural analysis. Minneapolis: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota.
MadisonJ. (2001). Federalist No. 52. In CareyG. W.McClellanJ. (Eds.), The Federalist (pp. 272-276). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.
33.
McCoryK. (2016, April12). Pa. charter school law “worst in US,” state auditor general says. Newsworks. Available from http://www.newsworks.org
34.
MironG. (2017). Description and brief history of charter schools. In FoxR. A.BuchananN. K. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of school choice (pp. 224-236). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
35.
MironG.GulosinoC. (2016). Virtual schools report 2016: Directory and performance review. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
36.
MironG.UrschelJ. L. (2010). Profiles of nonprofit education management organizations: 2009-2010. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/EMO-NP-09-10
National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers. (2016). Available from NASACT.org
41.
O’DonnellP. (2016, July11). ECOT online charter school loses bid to block attendance and funding audit. The Cleveland Plain Dealer. Available from www.cleveland.com
Pennsylvania Auditor General. (2016). Performance audit: Pennsylvania cyber charter school. Available from http://www.paauditor.gov
53.
ProvanceJ. (2016, May23). Ohio auditor blasts education department in charter-school enrollment audit. Available from http://www.toledoblade.com
54.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
55.
ReckhowS.SnyderJ. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43, 186-195.
56.
Republican National Committee. (2016). Education reform. Available from https://www.gop.com
57.
RichM. (2016, May18). Online school enriches affiliated companies if not its students. Available from https://www.nytimes.com
58.
SaultzA.FusarelliL. D. (2017). Online schooling: A cautionary tale. Journal of School Choice, 11, 29-41.
59.
SchlesingerJ. A. (1966). Ambition and politics. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
60.
SiegelJ. (2016a, February6). Public universities in Ohio could face performance reviews by state auditor. Columbus Dispatch. Available from http://www.dispatch.com
61.
TroyT. (2017, January25). Republican Yost to run for state A.G. in 2018. Toledo Blade. Available from www.toledoblade.com
62.
TsangE. W. (2014). Generalizing from research findings: The merits of case studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 369-383.
63.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2017). GDP and personal income: Regional data. Retrieved from https://www.bea.gov/
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Table 216.20. Number and enrollment of public elementary and secondary schools, by school level, type, and charter and magnet status: Selected years, 1990-91 through 2013-14. In U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (Ed.), Digest of education statistics (2015th ed.). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_216.20.asp
66.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016a). The condition of education: Charter school enrollment. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgb.asp
The U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Government auditing standards (the yellow book). Available from http://www.gao.gov/
69.
WaltonK. S.BrownR. E. (1990). State legislators and state auditors: Is there an inherent role conflict?Public Budgeting & Finance, 10, 3-12. doi:10.1111/1540-5850.00846
70.
WheatE. M. (1991). The activist auditor: A new player in state and local Politics. Public Administration Review, 51, 385-392. doi:10.2307/976407
71.
WongK. K.ShenF. X.AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS. (2007). The education mayor: Improving America’s schools. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
