• So, What’s A Former Teacher Like You?

Investigative Analysis

• Charters’ Day in Court

Recommended Reading

• Ohio Science Standards Deemed High
• News Round-up

Guest Editorial
So, What’s A Former Teacher Like You?
When I began my career as a public school teacher some 25 years ago, I had no crystal ball to see how education theory and practice would evolve. Back then, no one talked about charter schools, highly qualified teachers, or value-added assessments. But in retrospect, I recognize that I was witness to choice in action.
In a private school where I worked, parents used their personal resources to shape their children's futures. Now, as a six-year member of a public school board in Bexley district, rated Excellent by the State of Ohio, I have had the privilege of watching teachers, parents and students share in the process of determining what's best for each school and the children in them. Parents choose to move into the district I call home because they value its high-quality learning environment. 

But what about those children who don't have the means to relocate to high-achieving district schools, whose educational needs aren't being met, or who want an education more closely aligned with their family's values and beliefs? Today's challenge is to bring the same sorts of quality choices that Bexley's parents enjoy to these families of lesser means.

Recently, I've been involved with the creation of a new umbrella organization for Educational Choice in Ohio, aptly named School Choice Ohio (SCO).  Headquartered in Columbus, the purpose of SCO is to further the school choice movement in the Buckeye State by educating the media, policymakers, and the public about the value that choice brings to Ohio's families. We are also working to advance the state's Education Choice Scholarship Pilot Program, which will offer vouchers for families of children in persistently failing schools. The organization's overall goal, of course, is to support and advance educational innovation and excellence in whatever setting it occurs, public (district or charter) or private. 

Thanks to the budget bill signed by the governor this past June, 14,000 school vouchers will be available in 2006-2007 for students enrolled in public schools  district and charter  that have been rated in Academic Emergency for three consecutive years. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) estimates that some 20,200 students will be eligible.  Approximately 41 percent of those eligible students are from Columbus, 25 percent are from Cincinnati, and 21 percent from Dayton. 

School Choice Ohio has been involved in reviewing the draft rules for voucher implementation that have been distributed by ODE. We've noted some significant challenges in implementing the program. For example:

• ODE's draft rules would require families in the program to reapply each year, an unnecessarily burdensome step not consistent with the intent of the legislation. Once families become part of a private school community, the school should handle re-enrollment issues with the department. This is an unfair burden to place on families.
• The Legislature allocated funds for implementation of the voucher program, but if ODE allocates the majority of those funds for website development, state personnel and database management, the most pressing implementation needs facing parents who would actually use the vouchers may not be met.
• Students who previously attended a school rated above academic emergency, but who are slated to attend a poorly rated school next year (for example, those transiting into a middle or high school), are not eligible for a voucher. Such a setback is inconsistent with continuous achievement.

 Leaving these issues unresolved will not only create difficult situations for students and their families, but will also be an implementation nightmare for schools on both ends of the exchange.   
School Choice Ohio has met with representatives from ODE, and other stakeholders, in search of solutions to these and other implementation challenges. We believe that Ohio's voucher program should be delegated to a nonprofit organization, one with experience in voucher distribution, such as the Washington Scholarship Fund (WSF). WSF administers the Washington, D.C., voucher and has partnered with other D.C. organizations to successfully implement and support the program. In other cities, non-profit organizations have played a central role in implementing, advocating for, and marketing private scholarship programs (for example, PACE in Dayton). The Children's Scholarship Fund also places a critical role in funding and supporting private scholarship programs in communities across the country.

These private scholarship organizations are singularly focused and experienced and can help cut through the red tape that discourages families seeking to change schools. They are also embedded in their communities, and know how to provide local support, marketing, and advertising through outreach centers that maximize program participation. In short, these organizations have track records of successfully implementing private voucher programs; those records of accomplishment can be leveraged to the benefit of the state voucher program.
Without a strong commitment to market to, and support, eligible families, the Ohio Educational Choice Scholarship Program, one of the broadest and boldest such initiatives in the country, will not change the lives of those most in need educationally.

So, back to the question in the title, what's a former teacher like me doing in a place like this? The answer is simple. I, like other former "traditional" educators  superintendents, administrators and teachers want to provide every child in our state with a quality, life-changing education.  At School Choice Ohio, we'll work tirelessly to help ensure that all parents have quality choices for their children.

Investigative Analysis
Charters’ Day in Court
On November 29th, the Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments in State Ex Rel. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Bd. of Education, a case that may ultimately determine the fate of Ohio's charter school program. Issues of school oversight and funding dominated the session. Regarding oversight, the plaintiffs  who yearn to kill all charters insisted that Ohio's Constitution requires a single system of common schools administered by elected officials. They contend that charter schools are privately owned, privately managed, and not subject to the same academic and regulatory requirements faced by traditional public schools.

Because charter schools do not have publicly elected boards, plaintiffs say they're unconstitutional. If the court concurs with the plantiffs, Ohio's charter schools would undergo drastic changes, perhaps insisting that they be sponsored only by school districts, funded through alternative methods, or obliged to have elected boards of their own.   

Defendants answered with a one-two punch, first dispelling the myth that charter schools are private and then explaining that the Ohio Constitution doesn't require all public schools  district or charter  to have publicly elected boards. Counsel noted that charter schools are legislatively created, do not discriminate, hire state-certified teachers, do not charge tuition, do not require entrance exams, are non-sectarian, and are governed by the same standards as public schools. They are required to administer the state's proficiency and graduation tests, they receive a state report card, and they are subject to public audit. Additionally, charter schools are accountable to parents who can withdraw their children at any time, and to their sponsors, which hold schools accountable for their results. Just last week, two charter schools in Ohio were closed for failure to perform. (See "Charter school shut down" and "Cincinnati charter school closed".)

Much of the rest of the 70-minute Supreme Court session revolved around funding, a hotly debated issue in Ohio that actually precedes the creation of charter schools. Several justices sought clarification on the flow of dollars when a district school student transfers to a charter school. According to the defense, the bottom line is that, if it is unconstitutional for public funding to follow a student into a charter school, it must also be unconstitutional for money to follow that student into a different school district or (as under the newly enacted voucher program) into a private school. This, counsel argued, cannot be what the state constitution intends. Surely, it does not expect a child to be held hostage by the district where he or she happens to live.   

Advocates on both sides await the court's decision, expected in the spring. Based on the arguments and the number of facts in dispute  especially where funding is concerned it would be no surprise if some of the claims were returned to lower courts for examination.

There is every reason to expect charter schools will prevail at the end of this litigation. The Dayton Daily News observed in an editorial on December 3rd that plaintiffs are "throwing the kitchen sink at the justices, hoping one of their objections will stick." It is likely that charter opponents don't even expect judicial victory, but see this as a war of attrition designed to wear down, fragment, disrupt, confuse, bankrupt and exhaust charter operators, teachers, parents and supporters alike. (Charter foes already have two other cases pending, one in state court, one in federal court. These lawsuits will be around for years to come--precisely the aim of the forces arrayed against charter schools. 

 "Ohio justices hear charter school arguments," by Jim Provance, Toledo Blade, November 30, 2005
"Justices consider charter schools' constitutionality," by Catherine Candisky, Columbus Dispatch, November 30, 2005
"A false anti-charter argument," Cleveland Plain Dealer, December 5, 2005
"Charter school opponents grasp in court," Dayton Daily News, December 3, 2005

Recommended Reading
Ohio Science Standards Deemed High
A distinguished panel of scientists awarded Ohio's K-12 science standards a "B" in a new nationwide review of state academic standards for primary-secondary school science released today. The State of State Science Standards 2005—the first comprehensive study of science academic standards conducted since 2000—appraised the quality of K-12 science standards as states hustle to meet the No Child Left Behind Act's mandate for testing in this critical subject. The overall results are mixed. Fifteen states flunked, and another seven earned "D" grades.  Nine states and D.C. merited a mediocre "C." The states earning "A" marks in the new evaluation include California, Virginia, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Indiana, New York, and New Mexico.
Every state received a letter grade based on how well its standards met a set of rigorous criteria, including:

• Do the standards contain clear and fair expectations by grade level for students?
• Are the standards organized in a sensible way, both showing logical progression from grade to grade and easily navigated so teachers, parents, and the public can understand?
• Is there an appropriate amount of science content and, if so, do the standards outline the best approach to share that content?
• Are the expectations outlined specific enough, yet set high aims that will equip students with the science skills they need for college?
• Are the standards appropriately serious, or do they incorporate pseudo-scientific fads or politics?

 "The National Academies, Thomas Friedman, and others have called on Americans to 'get serious' about science, but few state standards can fairly be described as serious," said Chester E. Finn, Jr. "We all know that solid standards like Ohio's don't guarantee a good education for a state's students, but weak standards make it much less likely."
The State of State Science Standards can be found on our web site.

News Round-up

• Declining enrollment due to, among other things, the burgeoning of charter school options, the exodus of families to the suburbs, and smaller Catholic families, has conspired to force five Dayton Catholic schools to consolidate into two buildings. The effort will allow the schools to share the costs of staffing, building space, and other services. There may well be a lesson here for some of Dayton's smaller charter schools, and perhaps even for the Dayton Public Schools.

"5 Catholic schools to combine," by Anthony Gottschlich, Dayton Daily News, December 2, 2005

• A study comparing 2005 NAEP ("the nation's report card") results across eleven major cities showed serious weaknesses in the performance of Cleveland district students. Top cities included Austin, TX and Charlotte, N.C.

"Cleveland students near back of the class," by Ellen Jan Kleinerman, Cleveland Plain Dealer, December 2, 2005

• The financial struggles of the Columbus Public Schools have been well chronicled of late. District leaders even considered lengthening this year's winter break to save on heating bills. Unfortunately, these economic challenges have not been painful enough for the district to agree to sell unused or underused school buildings to needy charter school operators, some of whom have more students than space.

"District will keep closed schools for temporary classes," by Bill Bush, Columbus Dispatch, December 5, 2005
"Columbus students' break may get longer," by Jennifer Smith Richards, Columbus Dispatch, December 1, 2005
"District puts kibosh on plan to lengthen winter break," by Jennifer Smith Richards, Columbus Dispatch, December 3, 2005