A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
July 12, 2006, Volume 1, Number 15
Contents
Editorial
Recommended Reading
Reviews and Analysis
Editorial
Plan Would Put Flexibility in School Funding
Ohio's school-funding system is a mess. In recent years, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional four times, levies have become an annual event in many districts and charter schools are pitted against each other and against districts for access to state dollars. On top of that, like other states, Ohio faces severe inequities between rich and poor schools, stifling bureaucracy, bloated costs and rigid structures that limit school choice and innovation.
Any number of ideas are circulating for reforming public-school finance systems, from requiring schools to spend 65 percent of their dollars "in the classroom," to mandating that states provide "adequate" (i.e., vast) sums of money to schools. Some of these schemes may have merit, many do not, but none does what is needed: fundamentally and thoroughly overhaul the basic mechanisms by which public education dollars are disbursed to schools on behalf of their children. Weighted student funding does that.
Under this system, an idea attracting wide, bipartisan support, children receive set amounts of education funding and all of these dollars follow them to the public schools of their choice, including district-operated and charter schools. If youngsters have extra educational needs--because of poverty, disability, English as a second language, or other disadvantage, extra funds are attached to their education. And when these dollars arrive at a child's school, the principal has the authority to spend them according to students' needs. Principals could choose longer school days and additional tutors, could hire more or better teachers, could forego new playground equipment in favor of better instructional materials or new technology, and so on.
But doesn't Ohio do this already?
Don't kid yourself. Sure, there are programs to increase funding for schools with poor students, yet huge disparities remain. In 2004-05, for example, Beachwood City schools spent $17,763 per pupil while Chesapeake Union schools spent just $6,850. Moreover, while some funds follow Ohio students to charter schools that they choose, a good portion of the money doesn't move at all. A recent Fordham Institute study found that the average Ohio charter-school pupil received 31 percent less funding in 2002-03 than he would have in a district school. More than $2,500 of the student's education spending stayed in the district, rather than following him to his school of choice.
Furthermore, few Ohio principals have real budget authority, as vital decisions about the academic program, teacher pay and facilities are made in the superintendent's office.
As in most states, Ohio's system of public-school finance dates from the 19th century, when children were educated in the town where they were born, when those townspeople were pretty much expected to pay for their children's education, when mobility was limited, when changing schools was impractical and technological advances, such as virtual schools, were unfathomable.
To adapt education to the 21st century, we need to recognize that not all students attend their neighborhood schools and that citizens are affected as much by the education of children in other cities as by those in their hometowns. Education dollars need to be more fairly distributed, and they need to be portable. They need to be apportioned according to students' needs, and how they are spent should be decided by those best able to determine those needs.
That's why a diverse coalition of leaders, including three former U.S. secretaries of education, two former governors, business leaders and a host of school reformers and researchers, has embraced weighted student funding as a makeover of today's chaotic school-finance system. Ohio's leaders, including both gubernatorial candidates, should carefully consider its merits.
This editorial originally appeared in the July 9 edition of The Columbus Dispatch. You can find the link here.
by Eric Osberg
Setting the Record Straight: Quality Charter School Sponsorship Costs Money
A July 3rd Toledo Blade article, and a later editorial, suggested that all charter school operators and sponsors in Ohio are in the business to make money. Wrong. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation sponsors nine schools in southwest Ohio (we sponsored ten for most of the 2005-06 school year, but one left us in May because we were too demanding), and I can say definitively that quality sponsorship costs significantly more, at least in the first few years, than schools pay in fees. Sponsors can receive up to three percent of their basic state per-pupil payment, though most sponsors charge less.
Sponsors are the organizations that "license" charters on the state's behalf. These organizations are crucial for monitoring, guiding, and supporting schools--as well as for holding schools accountable for their academic performance and financial stewardship. There are at least three reasons why sponsorship in Ohio is not a simple money-maker for sponsoring organizations.
First, as is the case with charter schools, quality sponsors incur start-up costs that no public dollars cover. For example, in becoming a charter sponsor, Fordham spent a full year exploring the responsibilities, risks, and costs of quality sponsorship before signing a contract with the Ohio Board of Education. This entailed traveling to five other states to learn their best practices. Additionally, a quality sponsor has to spend significant sums of upfront money on legal help to determine its legal obligations and liabilities (including those of individual board members and staff). Suitable insurance coverage must be obtained. Competent staff members must be hired to manage the sponsorship operation. All this takes place before signing any contracts with schools, indeed before even knowing for certain which schools might ultimately sign contracts, and what revenue might accompany them. (Keep in mind that Ohio charter schools can choose among many possible sponsors.)
Second, seven of the ten schools that we sponsored during the 2005-06 school year had formerly been sponsored by the Ohio Department of Education. This meant they had previously developed various procedures and reporting processes that we asked them to modify in order to ensure better compliance. That cost money, too. For example, we've invested in adapting and implementing a computerized "oversight information system" geared towards the compliance needs of our schools and the state of Ohio. This web-based tracking system assists Fordham-sponsored schools in submitting compliance documents to us on a regular basis, and has replaced the cumbersome paper-and-file records that schools used in the past. It makes key documents available to us and the schools on a real-time and as-needed basis. An invaluable tool. But hardly cheap, either for us or for the Fordham-sponsored schools.
Third, under Ohio law, charter sponsors are expected to offer their schools "technical assistance" of various sorts. During our first year working closely with schools, we discovered that some have real needs. These vary by school but include efficient financial management systems, comprehensive curricula, and holistic assessment of whether the school's various parts are working well together. Fordham has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to help address schools' various requests for such help. Not having enough money ourselves, or in fees paid by the schools, we sought and obtained support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Why couldn't the schools themselves pay for such assistance? Ohio's charter schools are sorely under-funded, operating with about 70 percent of the dollars-per-pupil that district schools receive. Additionally, while district schools are spending lavishly on new buildings, charters receive no facility dollars.
The fact of the matter is that, when it comes to sponsorship, Ohio and its taxpayers are getting an incredible bargain by working with groups like the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. For every state dollar invested in Fordham sponsorship, we've spent at least two dollars of private money to support the schools we sponsor. This is not sustainable over the long-term, nor should it be. Charter schools are public schools and the public should pay their essential costs.
Based on our experience as a "quality sponsor", it's absurd to suggest, as The Toledo Blade has, that charter schools are a cash cow for their nonprofit sponsors. Decent sponsors and charter operators bring more to the table than they receive and Ohioans are smart to encourage this.
"A Political Education," Editorial, The Toledo Blade, July 10, 2006.
"Groups Clamor to Sponsor Ohio Charter Schools," by Ignazio Messina, The Toledo Blade, July 3, 2006.
by Terry Ryan
Recommended Reading
Tempest Over Templates
In the latest adaptation of a familiar argument, Ohio Board of Education members recently discussed a proposal to create "templates" for teaching scientific topics such as evolution, stem-cell research, and cloning. Strongsville's Colleen D. Grady called for the measure, insisting that teachers want guidance on how to explain issues that elicit "widely divergent opinions." The move comes just five months after the state board vetoed language in the state's tenth grade science standards requiring a critical analysis of evolutionary theory, a requirement Grady supported. The template proposal will be taken up for formal consideration at September's board meeting.
Critics denounced the move as another thinly-veiled attempt to insert aspects of "intelligent design" theory and creationism into the state's science curriculum standards. Yet no one should be surprised at the latest effort to chip away at Darwin's theory. Call it the "natural evolution" of an ongoing struggle.
"Darwin Faces Another Challenge," by Catherine Candisky, The Columbus Dispatch, July 11, 2006.
"State School Board Urged to Add Guide for Hot-Button Discussions," by Laura A. Bischoff, The Dayton Daily News, July 11, 2006.
by Quentin Suffren
Reviews and Analysis
Quality Control?
Schools routinely blame socio-economic factors when their charges under-perform. And too many critics nod in agreement. Not those at The Education Trust, whose new study Teaching Inequality points the finger at districts that routinely pair economically disadvantaged students with inexperienced or out-of-field teachers.
Does it matter? You bet. William L. Sanders has shown that students with three consecutive years of highly effective instruction outperform peers with ineffective teachers by more than 50 percentage points--even when children began with the same score.
One of the report's three case studies comes from Ohio, where the state's distribution of "highly-qualified" educators was evaluated. In our schools with the highest rates of children in poverty and minority enrollments, roughly 40 percent of teachers are not highly qualified. The rate is half that in wealthier, less racially diverse schools. In our highest-poverty high schools, almost 25 percent of math teachers are not highly qualified; that number's just 5 percent in the lowest poverty high schools.
No wonder achievement gaps are so wide.
Yet "highly qualified" is hardly a gold standard in this state. To be so designated in Ohio, teachers must have either a major or at least 30 hours in their teaching field, or demonstrate subject matter knowledge by passing a test. Not exactly a paragon of rigor.
Worse, veteran teachers can attain the "highly qualified" status simply by filling out a checklist of past activities and professional development. With enough years in the system, large numbers of veteran teachers can be "grandfathered" into the ranks of "highly qualified" without demonstrating adequate content knowledge or competence. (Thankfully, the U.S. Department of Education has ended this option, effective the 2006-07 school year.)
Compare our state to Illinois, which built a comprehensive database to examine the distribution of all the state's 140,000 teachers. The Illinois study also included indicators such as basic academic literacy, college program strength, and experience to create the Teacher Quality Index (TQI). Not surprisingly, teachers who ranked highly on the index possessed stronger academic skills--in addition to years of experience--than their lower scoring colleagues.
The Education Trust report makes clear that teacher quality matters. Ohio needs a credible benchmark--similar to the TQI--to measure it.
To read The Education Trust's report, click here.
by Quentin Suffren
School Facilities for Children, Not Districts
Charter schools in Ohio struggle to find the resources necessary to build new facilities or expand existing ones. This is not just an Ohio problem, though. Across the nation, tales abound of charter school leaders maxing out credit cards and borrowing against their homes to house students. Meanwhile, traditional districts are spending millions in state dollars to renovate existing facilities and construct new ones-often despite deeply pessimistic enrollment forecasts.
This makes little sense for communities or taxpayers. Ohio needs to fund the schools children attend rather than the construction of new buildings in the hope that students will fill them.
One solution is to encourage school districts to "sponsor" free and independent charter schools, making these schools eligible for state facilities funding, so long as the following conditions are met:
Ohio needs a viable strategy to provide all public schools the facilities they need.
"School Board Argues Over Cuts," by Jennifer Mrozowski, The Cincinnati Enquirer, July 11, 2006.
"Fewer New Schools Needed," by Jennifer Mrozowski, The Cincinnati Enquirer, July 6, 2006.
"Investors to the Rescue," Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, June 30, 2006.
"Despite Hopes, New City Schools Will Serve Fewer Neighborhoods," by Scott Elliot, The Dayton Daily News, June 29, 2006.
"Dayton Forced to Cut Back School Building Plan," by Scott Elliot, The Dayton Daily News, June 29, 2006.
by Terry Ryan, Quentin Suffren