A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
March 8, 2006, Volume 1, Number 8
Contents
Editorial
Recommended Reading
Editorial
Governor’s Core Initiative Deserves Support
If our students are to be prepared for the rigors of college and the workplace, high school curricula must be toughened. That's Governor Taft's thought, and he has a plan (the Governor's Core Initiative) to do just that. You’d think all Buckeyes would agree.
Surprise. Taft’s efforts to improve curricula have met resistance from some in the General Assembly; the president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT), Tom Mooney; district leaders across the state; and various others in the education establishment. Some seem more concerned with scoring political points against a lame-duck governor, than ensuring our high schools produce students ready for life post-graduation.
The critics’ complaint? Much more money will be needed to pay for more teachers to lead the more-rigorous coursework. Never mind that state education funding in Ohio has increased 56 percent since 1999 in real dollars, while class sizes have remained mostly steady at an 18-1 teacher to pupil ratio. And if significant spending doesn’t happen? According to Mooney, "You would definitely see a very high failure rate, and would definitely see a bump upward in the dropout rate."
Fortunately, Governor Taft has more faith in Ohio's educators and students than these naysayers. Unfortunately, he only has an 18 percent approval rating with Ohio’s voters. That said, the governor has evidence to support his position. In Massachusetts, for example, the percentage of young people passing state graduation tests has steadily improved since high schools re-doubled their efforts to help students and this was done through only modest increases in spending. And in Alabama, a state Department of Education reports that fewer students have dropped out since the state implemented more rigorous graduation requirements.
Finally, a recent survey of 467 high school dropouts commissioned by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation actually points to low expectations as a reason that some students don’t finish school. Nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed said they would have worked harder if expectations had been higher. The report, presented by Civic Enterprises, a Washington D.C. research firm, found that most of the dropouts interviewed had grade point averages of “C” or higher when they left school. Nearly half said their classes were not interesting. In short, students dropped out because they were bored and uninterested, not because they were overly pressed by academic demands.
Because it is so important that our graduates be adequately prepared to meet the challenges they are sure to face, we need to ensure that the Governor’s Core Initiative is successful. And there is some work to be done:
First, we need more emphasis on science, especially among younger children. The laser-like focus that math and reading are receiving thanks to No Child Left Behind has left science (and other subjects such as history, civics, art, and music) all but ignored. To reverse this trend, we should hold schools accountable for making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in science.
Second, students require quality instruction in courses such as biology, physics, and chemistry. For this reason, Ohio needs to recruit and train new science teachers who can deliver. One way to accomplish this is to make teaching more appealing to mid-career professionals. Allow subject experts into the classroom now; don’t make them wade through a year or more of classes about teaching before they earn a credential. These courses can be taken while teaching. A good model is the federal government’s proposed $40 million “Adjunct Teacher Corps.” This program would allow scientists and engineers to teach a few hours a week in school classrooms without receiving traditional teaching certificates. Moreover, school districts should be freed from collective bargaining agreements so that they can offer signing bonuses and performance pay to math and science teachers. Districts need flexibility in hiring. Another important avenue to explore is communication technologies. Quality math and science instruction can be delivered through computer-based programs.
Finally, we need to re-examine our state standards, curriculum, and assessments in those areas where we want additional coursework. The curriculum must be rigorous, relevant, and aligned with state standards so students are taught what they need to know. A recent federal study, “The Toolbox Revisited” (see below), cautions states against “watering down these courses as more students are required to take them.” (Click here to view recent reviews of Ohio’s math and science standards by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.)
Governor Taft has taken the first step toward ensuring that Ohio’s high school graduates have the math and science courses they need to be productive citizens. Figuring out how to implement this vision is the next step. Our children are counting on us to stop making excuses and figure out how to deliver an education that works. This means moving beyond the tired old cynicism that permeates far too much of public education, and taking new approaches to delivering quality math and science programs to all of the state’s high school students. If we can’t figure out how to do this Ohio will simply continue to fall further behind (least we forget Ohio ranks 49th in job creation behind only Michigan) our economic competitors.
Relevant Reading:
“Some kids say schools are plenty tough now: Taft’s plan to strengthen requirements might add to existing struggles,” by Jennifer Smith Richards, The Columbus Dispatch, February 26, 2006
“Teachers fear dropout rate increase: Taft’s plan for math, science requirements worry educators,” Associated Press, February 26, 2006
“Dropouts say their schools expected too little of them,” by Greg Toppo, USA Today, March 1, 2006
“The Toolbox Revisted: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College,” by the U.S. Department of Education, February 2006
Notes from the National Charter School Conference in Sacramento
I had the good fortune of attending the National Charter Schools Conference in Sacramento last week with 3,600 other school reformers, including some 80 who hailed from Ohio. Attendees were a cross-section of charter school students, teachers, principals, administrators, board members, sponsors, operators, philanthropists, and policy makers from across the United States. Even California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made an appearance.
The conference's bottom line? The future of the nation's charter school movement is directly connected to charter schools' ability to deliver academic performance. This focus on school quality resonates in Ohio where an ever-growing chorus of charter school operators, leaders and supporters have made clear their commitment to raising student achievement in charter schools. So, we have the commitment. What are some concrete steps that can be taken in the coming months and years to help charters reach the goal of increased student achievement? Three common themes emerged in Sacramento.
First, charters need adequate pupil funding and access to facility dollars. As was shared in a session aptly entitled "78 Cents on the Dollar: Why Charter Schools Get Less, and What We Can Do About It," charters in many states are operating with less per-pupil funding than district schools. Worse, charters receive no funding for facilities. This is true in Ohio, where charters receive about $2,500 less per pupil than their district competitors, and receive no facilities support. What to do about this? The Texas Charter Coalition (the state's charter school association) is taking an innovative approach. It's pushing for legislation that would allow the state Commissioner of Education to close fraudulent or consistently poor performing charter schools expeditiously. In return for making it easier to close such schools, the coalition is seeking per-pupil and facilities funding for strong charter schools with a history of outstanding performance. This is a classic political trade-off, and the sort of approach supporters of charter schools in Ohio should consider for the Buckeye State. State policy leaders in Ohio as elsewhere are unlikely to provide additional funds to charter schools unless there is something in it for them, and they definitely crave higher performing schools for underserved children.
Second, charter school sponsors (organizations responsible for giving birth to and providing oversight of charter schools) must be held accountable for their schools? performances. In turn, sponsors need to know when to stay out of the way, when to provide their schools with support (in the form of technical assistance), and when to intercede on behalf of children in failing or deeply troubled schools.
Our state has a "market-place" of sponsors, not just one sponsoring organization as in other parts of the country. In some states, charter schools and their operators face serious challenges because there are only one or two sponsors operating statewide, sponsoring schools reluctantly. Other states only have district sponsors, and many of these districts have been forced by state law to give birth to charter schools even though they see charters as against their own self-interests. That said, for a market-place of sponsors to work (i.e., to produce high quality charter schools) several factors need to be in place. These include holding sponsors accountable for the ultimate performance of their schools (both academically and as businesses); making the school/sponsor relationship transparent (e.g., contracts between schools and sponsors should be readily available and on-line, as should be the sponsor's report on the academic and fiscal health of their schools) and ensuring sponsors are appropriately funded for guaranteeing school performance. If sponsors are to do the painful work of closing persistently failing schools (something traditional districts never do) then they should receive proper funding for taking these tough actions.
Third, states need organized and effective charter school support organizations(associations and technical assistance providers). The 2006 National Charter Schools Conference that I attended was organized through a partnership of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the California Charter School Association. The California Charter Schools Association clearly serves as a powerful and well-respected charter school advocacy and support organization, and there are similar organizations in Michigan and Colorado. The benefits of such an organization to its members were made clear throughout the conference and included: 1) assistance to charter school facilities programs; 2) public relations efforts; 3) effective lobbying; 4) technical assistance; and 5) access to charter/education experts (e.g., legal expertise, staff recruitment support, etc.). There are various lessons here for Ohio's charter supporters, and the good news is that they are starting to act on them. Decent schools are beginning to rally around quality, decent sponsors are working together to ensure their schools deliver results, and charter school supporters are working to develop strong support organizations.
To learn more about the National Charter School Conference surf to: www.publiccharters.org
Recommended Reading
Within Our Reach
By Dale Patrick Dempsey
American education stands at a crossroads. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 has the potential to have as big an impact on the quality of education in America as Brown vs. the Board of Education had on equality in education. Or not.
The goal of NCLB is to have every child proficient in reading and math by 2014. Those are the key skills students need for success in nearly every other academic subject, John Chubb writes in his pamphlet, Within Our Reach: How America Can Educate Every Child. Chubb is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and one of the founders of Edison Schools. He writes that getting to the promised land will not be easy, and teachers and school districts are currently struggling with the demands of NCLB.
The law seeks to improve student test scores with a strict diet of high standards, school choice, and accountability measures. Some states, which can design their own graduation tests, are choosing to lower the bar by setting their proficiency tests at ninth or even eighth grade levels. The authors of this report recommend state tests be measured against the National Assessment of Academic Progress, and that each state’s ranking be published for all to see. In this way, the task force argues, states with low expectations will be “outed” and forced to raise their testing standards.
Some politicians may be tempted to water down the expectations of NCLB, but voters, both Democrat and Republican, should not allow a retreat on its core premise: that all children can learn and that all schools should be held accountable for delivering results.
A retreat now would be a great loss, as this pamphlet so persuasively puts forth. Look for this report at http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com.