A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
August 9, 2006, Volume 1, Number 17
Contents
Editorial
From the Front Lines
Recommended Reading
Reviews and Analysis
Editorial
Core Concerns Overblown
In a recent Columbus Dispatch op ed, Matthew Carr, Education Policy Director at the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, raised several concerns about Governor Taft's "Ohio Core" proposal. The plan, which is up for debate this fall in the legislature, would have all high schools--district, charter, and private alike--require students to complete a curriculum that consists of (at least) four years of math courses, three years of science and social studies, and two years of a foreign language. Note, though, that individual students could "opt out" of the required Core (with their parents' approval).
Carr contends that the "Ohio Core" would impose a rigid, "one-size-fits-all" curriculum on schools, preventing them from innovating and from devising more effective methods for meeting a variety of student needs. He also objects to the assumption that students with no college plans need college prep courses to make it in the workplace.
Carr is a friend of education reform and Buckeye is a quality place that often bubbles with good ideas. Unfortunately, they're wrong about the Ohio Core.
First, Carr is incorrect in his assertion that the Taft plan would be inflexible and would stifle innovation in the classroom. Most private schools and middle-class district schools already require such demanding coursework of their students. They know that such a curriculum is essential for success in today's world--and students and parents are beating paths to their doors. It is poor children who often lack access to such opportunities.
And innovation is not in itself an education virtue, especially if there's a proven path that actually works. Moreover, successful charter school models across the land are proving that innovation applies to how courses are taught more than what is taught. Take California's High Tech High, the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), or Ohio's own Dayton Early College Academy. All require their students to complete rigorous coursework and equip them with the skills and knowledge needed to be successful in college and the workplace. Yet each does so in a unique and innovative fashion.
Second, college readiness skills are becoming indistinguishable from those needed for success in modern jobs. A 2006 study by ACT found that colleges and entry-level jobs requiring less than a bachelor's degree (but paying a living wage) demand similar math and reading skill levels. In 2005, Achieve, Inc. surveyed both college professors and employers around the country and also found that high school graduates entering universities or seeking "living wage" jobs need advanced math, reading, and communication skills. And Public Agenda surveys have shown that professors and employers alike believe that far too many high school graduates lack critical skills.
In today's economy, even "blue collar" jobs require understanding of concepts taught in algebra, geometry, and trigonometry courses. No wonder universities and business groups like the Ohio Business Roundtable have been championing the potential benefits of the Ohio Core.
Third, young people want to be challenged academically and expect to be college-ready upon graduation. A survey by the Ad Council found that 91 percent of low-income teens expect to graduate from college. They know that college graduates earn almost twice as much as workers with only a high school diploma.
Yet many of these young people are headed for painful disappointment. Just half of America's low-income youth even finish high school. And many of those who go on to college still require remedial coursework--at ever-mounting costs to both students and taxpayers. According to 2003 figures, 41 percent of Ohio graduates entering college were required to take a remedial course in math or reading.
This gap between expectations and performance can be traced directly to poor academic preparation while in high school. The University of Arkansas's Jay Greene defines college readiness as "the minimum standards of the least selective four-year colleges." Under this definition, only 36 percent of students graduate adequately prepared for college. ACT's rubric puts this figure at 26 percent. The Ohio Core seeks to close this gap by preparing young people for the realities of post-secondary education and the modern workplace.
Carr's argument rests on the belief that students should have choices among a variety of schools and curricula. But students who, knowingly or not, eschew rigorous curricula in favor of easier paths will find their choice a false one. A high school education should open options for young people, enabling them to make choices (whether college or employment or, as is often the case, some of both) and then pursue them with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Carr overlooks these basic facts; the Ohio Core is counting on them.
"Ohio Core Education Program Will Backfire," (Op Ed) by Matthew Carr, The Columbus Dispatch, July 22, 2006.
"Ready for College and Ready for Work: Same or Different," ACT, April 2006.
"Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work?" Achieve, Inc., February, 2005.
"Reality Check 2002," Public Agenda, 2002.
"Playing College Catch-Up," by Lori Kurtzman, The Cincinnati Enquirer, July 30, 2006.
by Terry Ryan, Quentin Suffren
From the Front Lines
Democracy on Display in Columbus
Speaker of the House Jon Husted (R-Dayton) and Senator Teresa Fedor (D-Toledo) recently squared off in Columbus, engaging in a 90-minute debate on school choice in Ohio. The debate was hosted by the Columbus Rotary Club.
While Speaker Husted defended charter schools and Ohio's new voucher program as integral to the state's school reform efforts, Senator Fedor argued they have undermined public education in Ohio. And though no one left bruised or bloody, the debate was informative and entertaining political theater.
Speaker Husted led with a four-pronged argument:
First, wealthy and middle class families in the Buckeye State have always had school choice. Less fortunate families should, too.
Second, school choice--and in particular charter schools--has played a significant role in reducing the state's high school drop-out rate. Case in point is Montgomery County's hugely successful ISUS charter school, which has helped the county lower its dropout rate from 25.6 percent in 2000 to just over 12 percent in 2005.
Third, charter schools, and now vouchers, provide space for innovation in education, from single gender education and drop-out recovery programs, to schools with extended days and academic calendars. Cyber-schools now serve about 15,000 students in Ohio, and this figure is growing significantly each year.
Fourth, school choice has forced traditional district schools to get better through competition. For example, Dayton Public Schools, long mired in Academic Emergency--the state's lowest rating--will be rated in Continuous Improvement when the state issues report cards next week. While district leaders, teachers and students deserve credit for their hard work, competition from charters no doubt focused their efforts.
Senator Fedor countered with a three-point attack:
One, charter schools are potentially a good thing, but Ohio's charter school program has been poorly implemented. 71 percent of the state's charters were rated in either Academic Watch or Academic Emergency in 2004-05.
Two, charter schools hurt traditional district schools by draining resources from them and their students. In fact, Fedor argues, the state's unconstitutional education funding system short-changes traditional school districts while charters have been financed at an exorbitant cost of $1.5 billion.
Three, charter schools should be returned to the public (in lieu of "corporate" entities that are "making profits on the backs of our children."). All charters should be sponsored and operated by elected school boards.
Who emerged the winner?
Just about everyone (Gadfly still gives Husted the nod). Audience members were unanimous in considering the event important and worthwhile. Both Speaker Husted and Senator Fedor should be commended for performing a tremendous public service--putting democracy on display in Columbus.
by Terry Ryan, Quentin Suffren
Recommended Reading
DPS on the Move
Dayton Public Schools has found the light at the end of a very dark tunnel. Or as DPS Superintendent Percy Mack said, "Well, at least now we know the light is on."
Last week, Mack announced that DPS would jump two spots on Ohio's school rating system, from Academic Emergency into Continuous Improvement--skipping Academic Watch altogether. No mean feat for a district that has earned the state's lowest rating for the past eight years.
State rules automatically allow low-ranked districts that jump ten points in three years on the state's Performance Index--and grow by at least three points in the most recent year--to earn a Continuous Improvement rating. DPS moved from 61.3 to 73.2 on the Performance Index over three years, gains Mack attributes to hard work and improved instruction and accountability. (There's no mention of the intense competition from Dayton's charter schools, which has put added pressure on the district to reform.)
While DPS's achievement is certainly impressive and long overdue, the district still has a long way to go. Stay on the move, DPS.
"District Out of ‘Academic Emergency'," by Scott Elliot, The Dayton Daily News, August 2, 2006.
"Dayton Earned Its Better Grades," Editorial, The Dayton Daily News, August 6, 2006.
Hoosier Daddy?
Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) chief Eugene G. White has a simple message for his middle school principals. Get results or get out.
Tired of IPS middle schools' lackluster test results and mounting discipline problems, White gave principals one year to turn things around. "Unless we improve instruction and create a safe, orderly climate for kids, we're going to have new leadership," White stated. If that doesn't work, White may abolish the district's middle schools altogether. (What we know about middle schools--read here--suggests the latter idea has merit.)
Last year, all nine IPS middle schools ranked in the bottom quartile in state tests scores. Suspension rates were as a high as one or more for every two students. Little wonder parents are withdrawing their children from IPS rather than sending them to a district middle school.
Ohio's urban district leaders know something about dwindling enrollment. Perhaps they should take a cue from a Hoosier. Don't go soft in the middle.
"IPS Chief Warns Middle Schools: Shape Up," by Andy Gammill, The Indianapolis Star, August 2, 2006.
Reviews and Analysis
The OEA Misfires
With its new report evaluating charter schools, the Ohio Education Association (OEA) launches another salvo in the already polarized charter school debate.
Not surprisingly, it's far off the mark.
The OEA complains that charters receive more state funding than traditional districts, $6,734 per students versus $3,329 per student, respectively. Yet this difference exists only because charters receive no local dollars to supplement their budgets. Meanwhile, traditional districts pull in hefty sums from local tax levies. The result is that that the major urban districts (where most charters operate) outspend charter schools hands down. Ohio Department of Education figures from 2004-05 show Columbus Public Schools and Dayton Public Schools leading the pack with per-pupil expenditures of $12,734 and $12,732--nearly double that of most charter schools. A comprehensive study conducted by Fordham--see here--found similar inequities across the state.
Moreover, these figures don't include state facility funds, of which charters receive none. Columbus and Cincinnati Public Schools are currently overseeing building projects with price tags over $1 billion--all paid for with taxpayer dollars. Meanwhile, charter schools must shoulder facility costs and educate their students for about 70 cents on every traditional school dollar.
As for achievement, the report decries charter performance-noting that 71 percent of these schools are either on academic watch or in academic emergency, compared with just 49 percent of traditional schools. To be sure, charter schools (and many traditional public schools) struggle academically. But the OEA's broad comparison pits charters schools against all traditional public schools-including those serving more affluent suburban populations. Charter schools serve predominantly urban, low-income students. Hardly a reasonable comparison.
Another OEA comparison between urban traditional public and charter schools with the same zip code finds that only Dayton Public Schools was outperformed by charters. While more interesting and appropriate, it's still not a fair comparison. Many traditional public schools, through open enrollment policies, and most charter schools draw students from all over the city, not just local neighborhoods.
Despite insisting it is a strong "supporter" of charter schools (so strong that it wants the Ohio Supreme Court to declare them unconstitutional), the OEA is far more interested in throwing bombs than raising the level of discourse surrounding charter schools.
You can download the OEA's report here.
by Quentin Suffren
No Child Left Behind Act: States Face Challenges Measuring Academic Growth
A recent GAO report suggests that growth models can help all students become academically proficient as required by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Such models could allow states to measure students' academic progress from year to year, making it easier to show growth in student learning and meet Average Yearly Progress (AYP) targets.
It won't be easy, though.
Growth models depend on comprehensive data management systems, which few states currently have. Other challenges include creating data and assessment systems that can track individual student performance across grades and schools; hiring individuals who can analyze and communicate growth model results; and merging the growth models into state accountability systems, which are already in place.
While 26 states, including Ohio, have some form of a growth model in place now--or will soon, only seven states can track individual student growth over time. And just two states, Tennessee and North Carolina, are actually running growth model programs approved by the Department of Education. Nonetheless, the report's authors believe all states can create growth models for students to reach proficiency by NCLB's deadline of 2014.
Though not a sexy read, the report does a good job of detailing the challenges and promises of using growth models. Too bad it provides little guidance for states such as Ohio, which faces a potentially rocky implementation of its own model in 2007-08.
Ohio will simply have to blaze its own trail.
Read the report here.
by Kristina Phillips-Schwartz