A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
June 7, 2006, Volume 1, Number 13
Contents
Editorial
Guest Editorial
Reviews and Analysis
Reviews
Announcements
Editorial
Initial Lessons from W.E.B. DuBois in Cincinnati
On May 27, the Cincinnati Enquirer ran a front page story announcing that the board of the state’s top performing charter school—the W.E.B. DuBois Academy—had voted to close the school due to serious financial problems. As the school’s sponsor, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation was and remains deeply concerned about what that unexpected closure will mean for the 440 or so students who currently attend the school—nearly all of them low income, minority youngsters for whom this school represents a much-needed education alternative. We have been working with the school’s board of trustees and the Ohio Department of Education to find a solution less draconian than shuttering the school. A solution may or may not be found, but two early lessons can be learned from this developing story.
First, charter schools in Ohio are seriously under-funded, the more so when they try to do more than the norm for children who need more than the norm. For example, as the Fordham Institute reported in August 2005, during FY 2002-03, Dayton charter schools received 33.8 percent less funding than district schools: $7,614 vs. $11,498 per pupil, a gap of $3,884. Moreover, charter schools receive no money for facilities, so 10 to 15 percent of a school’s operational funding typically goes to paying the cost of a place in which to operate.
This leaves charter schools tasked with making bricks without nearly enough straw. Like KIPP and other high performing charter models across the country, the DuBois Academy has been academically successful in large part because it keeps its students in classrooms much longer than traditional schools—both extended days and years. In Ohio, however, schools don’t get additional dollars for longer school days and longer school years. A charter school receives the same level of funding whether it educates a child for 920 or 2200 hours a year. This discourages some charter operators from providing the extra education that their disadvantaged pupils need—and causes others to spend precious energy finding ways to raise additional dollars, cut corners and close gaps.
Because charter schools receive no local tax dollars, unlike traditional school districts they can’t solve their fiscal problems by turning to local voters for a new levy.
Second, contrast the W.E.B. DuBois situation with that of the Dayton Public Schools. The Dayton Daily News reported on May 31 that “the Dayton school board expects to seek a new tax levy in the spring of 2007 – a year earlier than planned – because of an unexpected state funding shortfall.” Charter schools have no such option.
Ohio’s student funding system creates further tensions between charter schools and the districts in which they operate. Ohio is one of only three states that route charter dollars through the local district’s funding formula and then subtract those funds from the district’s allocation. This guarantees confusion in tracking students across schools and encourages districts to make life hard on charter schools by “flagging” what they deem questionable student records, which in turn costs charters precious cash flow and staff time dealing with angry district officials. This method of funding also inflames many district officials who are reminded each time they look at a state financial reporting document how many students have left for charter schools and how much state and federal money has gone out the door with them. This reminder may prompt districts to improve but it inflames relations between charters and districts. That’s a particular pity because in tight budgetary times district and charter schools have many interests in common that would benefit from collaboration and partnership.
The situation at DuBois Academy is fluid but it is not too soon to draw some policy lessons. The most important one is that doing right by disadvantaged kids is hard and takes more time and money than provided by traditional school calendars and funding formulae. This doesn’t mean the state should simply throw more money at education, but it does suggest that schools (be they district or charter) that utilize longer days and longer years and deliver academic results should receive additional public support to underwrite this additional instruction time.
“Top Charter School to Close,” by Jennifer Mrozowski, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 27, 2006
“Dayton Schools May Seek Levy as Early as 2007,” by Scott Elliot, Dayton Daily News, May 30, 2006
by Terry Ryan
Guest Editorial
Superintendent of Columbus Public Schools Testifies on the Ohio Core
Editor’s note: Eight states have implemented statewide rigorous core curriculum for their students. Gov. Taft believes it’s time that Ohio does the same. The Ohio General Assembly is considering legislation that would do just that. Gene T. Harris, superintendent of Columbus Public Schools, recently testified before the Ohio Senate Education Committee on the subject. Her remarks are excerpted here.
As the superintendent of the second largest school district in Ohio, I worry about many things related to the schools and my community, but the one issue that keeps me up at night is whether our educational system is adequately preparing students for the information and technology age.
I recently toured the Honda automotive plant in Marysville. The factory floor was lined with computers and other technological innovations now doing work that was performed by assembly line workers just a few years ago. It was obvious from the tour that a person in the 21st century must have the skills and knowledge to work with information and technology to earn a living wage. To that end, I want to express support for S.B. 311, which would establish a more rigorous core curriculum for Ohio’s schools.
We have struggled in this country to ensure equality of access to our educational system. Historically, we denied equal access to women, those living in poverty, people of color, and those with physical and other challenges. We did not achieve universal access to our schools for all children until quite recently. All children today have equal access to a public education, but we must now ensure that all children have an equal access to quality education. For many years, the effort to provide equal educational opportunities to all children was hampered by researchers and educators who believed only certain children could learn. As a result of such beliefs, a two-tiered system of education known as “tracking” was created and used throughout the past century.
Current research tells us that tracking is wrong because all children can learn. Current research also tells us that if the learning environment is challenging and the teacher is highly qualified in the subject matter, all children can achieve. In Columbus Public Schools, we live by the motto, “All Means All.”
We believe that S.B. 311 is on the right track but we recognize that there are some issues of real concern with S.B. 311:
With regard to the “opt-out” provision to the bill, where some students could take alternatives to the core curriculum, we support deleting this provision to ensure that every student receives a high quality and rigorous education. We believe that the opt-out provision will re-establish a two-tiered system of education, operating on the disproved notion that all children cannot learn a rigorous curriculum.
With or without an opt-out provision, intervention services are paramount to ensuring equal opportunity to all students, especially in school districts with high concentrations of poverty. We all know and recognize that poverty complicates the teaching and learning process in urban school districts. The recently released kindergarten readiness data for Ohio only confirms the data we have collected for years: There is an academic gap at kindergarten between children from affluent families and children from families living in poverty. We have been working in Ohio to ensure that every classroom is led by a high quality teacher. The realization of this goal is complicated by the lower numbers of highly qualified teachers in math and science fields. We agree with the governor’s proposal to create incentives for those who teach in the math and science fields.
To really reduce dropout rates and provide more rigorous teaching and learning at our high schools, we must also focus on our middle and elementary schools. Our elementary and middle school curricula must be aligned to prepare students for the rigorous high school curriculum.
Of course, adequate intervention services, increased professional development, math and science teacher incentives, and curriculum alignment will require additional funding. We cannot skirt this issue.
S.B. 311 moves our efforts to ensure a quality education for every child in the right direction. With the appropriate changes and attention to critical details mentioned previously, S.B. 311 will be a good public policy for the state of Ohio.
Finally, this is not just about college entry and reducing the need for remedial classes at the college level, while I believe that is certainly a worthy goal. It is also about ensuring that all of our young people graduate from high school with choices—the choice to enter and succeed in higher education or the choice to enter the workforce with the opportunity to earn a living wage. It’s also about the future of this state. Requiring the Ohio Core for all students and financially supporting its implementation will help to make Ohio a more attractive option for business and industry.
Read S.B. 311 here.
Reviews and Analysis
Promise and Perils of a Data-Driven Future
Is data collection and technology really revolutionizing classroom instruction? It depends.
Consider the teacher who snaps open a laptop, and with a few clicks of the mouse has comprehensive achievement data on all her students, reaching back from the beginning of their school careers up to yesterday. The data includes not only results from standardized tests but also information about each student’s educational background, results of coursework, and grade point average.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the norm. Instead, most teachers find that the software programs given to them to analyze student data contain spotty content that’s hard to understand, let alone useful.
We know this thanks to Education Week’s annual report, “Technology Counts,” which is recently released for 2006. The report issues a technology report card to all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Ohio received a solid grade for making technology accessible to teachers (“A”), but a poor grade for using it (“D-minus”). Overall, the state earned “B-minus,” slightly higher than the national average of “C-plus.” Michigan was the reverse, receiving a “D-plus” for access to technology, and an “A-minus” for use of technology, with an overall grade of “C.”
The report finds that it isn’t enough to build computer systems and then expect teachers and schools to use them effectively. “We will have missed the boat if we don’t answer the question of how these data systems can inform instruction,” said Dane Linn, education policy director for the National Governors Association.
Technology is expensive, but cost isn’t the greatest challenge schools face in effectively using it. There are three other issues that schools and districts struggle mightily with:
There is a long way to go. The “Technology Counts 2006” report found that in Ohio teachers have access to no more student data than the general public does, and that the state provides little guidance or training on the effective use of data analysis and how to use it in creating lesson plans.
Ohio is hardly alone in our struggle to use technology. A brochure published by the American Diploma Project Network lists ten essential elements in creating a longitudinal data system. No state in the country has all ten elements, and only eight states have at least seven. It appears most states are falling short in collecting, managing and using data. Computers and software today are fast-changing and incredibly adaptable. Educators must learn to be the same.
“Technology Counts 2006,” Education Week, May 2006
“Measuring What Matters,” American Diploma Project Network, November 2005
by Dale Patrick Dempsey
Reviews
The State of State World History Standards
Harvey Pennick, the late, great Texas golf instructor, once wrote: “If you don’t have a good grip, you don’t want a good swing.” Ohio finds itself in a similar situation in its teaching of world history. The state’s world history standards, documents outlining what students ought to learn, doesn’t have a firm grip on the material, thereby hampering teachers and schools ability to follow through on effective instruction. That’s the finding from a new report authored by the eminent historian and foreign policy expert Walter Russell Mead, who gave Ohio an “F” on its world history standards. Mead found Ohio’s content standards “vague” and he noted they “do not specify content to be taught.” Ohio’s instructional methods for teaching history received even greater criticism.
Not that other states are fairing better, Two-thirds of them either failed or were awarded “Ds.” Just eight states—California, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia—earned an “A."
“At a time when the United States faces threats and competitors around the globe, and when our children’s future is more entangled than ever with world developments, our schools ought not treat world history so casually,” said Chester E. Finn, Jr., president of the Fordham Institute, which published the report. “It is as if Americans are wearing blinders—and happy about it.”
Surf here to view the report.
“Report Says Ohio Fails to Make the Grade in History,” by Scott Elliott, Dayton Daily News, June 6, 2006
by Dale Patrick Dempsey
Announcements
Haycock’s Hope
On May 10 in Columbus, Kati Haycock, director of the Education Trust, spoke before a packed room of over 300 educators, legislators, philanthropists, business leaders and reporters with a message of hope for Ohio’s schools. If you were unable to elbow your way through the crowd to see her presentation, check it out here.
Choosing a School: A New Guide
The education scene in Ohio is brimming with options. But how do parents know which school is best for their children? GreatSchools, a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco, has produced a valuable workbook to help parents in the Dayton area answer that question. “My School Chooser” profiles 62 district, private, and charter schools in the city, and walks parents step-by-step through test scores, and data on teachers, facilities, and safety, among others. The book was developed by GreatSchools, in partnership with the University of Dayton, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and other national foundations, and was distributed to 20,000 Dayton households on June 1 by The Dayton Daily News. To obtain a copy, contact Meera Chary at (415) 977-0700, ext. 113 or visit http://www.greatschools.net/.