A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
December 13, 2006, Volume 1, Number 25
Ohio Gadfly will be taking a brief hiatus to celebrate the holidays and ring in the New Year. But not to worry--he's left behind an oversized issue to keep readers busy in the meantime. The first of 2007 will arrive in inboxes on January 10.
Contents
Editorial
Feature Q & A
From the Front Lines
Reviews and Analysis
Editorial
House Bill 695: Admirable Ends, Redundant Means
The General Assembly is now debating House Bill 695, which would create a new system of secondary schools dedicated to stronger science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) instruction. Texas has a similar program, it’s on the National Governors Association agenda, and it’s being promoted nationally by business leaders and major foundations such as Dell and Gates.
The goals of the STEM initiative are laudable: to prepare young people for college and employment in a new economy centered on STEM-related fields, and thereby to promote Ohio as a center of high-tech innovation, enterprise and prosperity, powered by a highly-skilled workforce.
Bravo, we say, to worthy goals that have elicited keen legislative and gubernatorial interest in Columbus. Where we stop clapping is when we inspect the mechanism for creating and operating such schools. House Bill 695 proponents would, in effect, create a third species of public schools in Ohio. That part is neither necessary nor desirable.
Apparently seeking to elude both the rigidities of the regular district-operated system and the embarrassments of the charter-school system, House Bill 695 would create a new structure of schooling answerable to a new governing authority appointed by the Governor with members chosen for expertise in business, science and technology. Like charter schools, STEM schools could be “converted” from existing public schools or created from scratch, but high quality charters can’t convert to STEM status. Like charters, STEM schools would be free from certain existing education regulations (through waivers)--for instance, qualified STEM teachers would be exempt from some licensure provisions. STEM schools would be funded like traditional public schools (meaning they’d receive about 30 percent more funding than charters, plus facilities dollars), and would practice a policy of open-enrollment, welcoming all students that apply.
Here’s the odd part: the best and most innovative ideas here can already be glimpsed in the charter-school world. Indeed, the original STEM model, San Diego’s exemplary High Tech High school, operates as a charter school, as do its numerous clones within California. So, too, is the Denver School of Science and Technology, another exemplary model oft-cited by STEM backers.
So why create a redundant and confusing non-charter mechanism in Ohio? One answer may be that chartering has left a bitter taste in some lawmakers’ mouths, due to the state’s many underperforming charter schools and weak-kneed sponsors. In a political climate growing weary, if not hostile, to the challenges and opportunities offered by Ohio’s charter schools, it doubtless strikes some as cleaner to create yet another new program than to strengthen and cleanse an existing one--or to take on the even more arduous task of making local school districts, the Ohio Department of Education and the stateboard of education hospitable to (and flexible enough for) STEM schools.
Then there’s the matter of money. The pending bill would provide new STEM schools with $16 million for facilities (unheard of in Ohio’s charter program) and a $600,000 in set-up costs for its new state-level superstructure (something wholly lacking in the charter domain). Untold additional millions in philanthropic grants also await these new schools. (The planners are already spending Gates dollars.) The bill, moreover, has been exquisitely tailored to be acceptable to the teacher unions--although, ironically, it was the charter schools’ recent vanquishing of those unions in the Ohio Supreme Court that made the constitutional environment safe for STEM schools.
Tempting as it may be for legislators to rush this bill to Bob Taft’s desk, three concerns might invite them to consider a partial change of course. First, there is no doubt that Ohio’s charter-school program needs repairs, that a repaired charter-school program could easily accomplish every single objective of the STEM program without creating a third system--and that creating a third system will inevitably ease the pressure to reform systems one and two.
Second, some elements of House Bill 695 are so praiseworthy that they ought not be confined to STEM schools. For instance, relaxing licensure requirements to encourage qualified professionals to teach STEM subjects (as contemplated in this bill), and circumventing Ohio’s absurdly restrictive teacher-certification system (which, for example, blocks the acclaimed Teach for America program from entering the Buckeye State), could also help meet the growing need for able teachers in urban and rural school districts. Indeed, some of the greatest statewide shortages are in science and math, the very fields where the STEM bill creates flexibility--but only for STEM schools!
One can’t help but note how warmly many Ohio universities are receiving the STEM idea in contrast to their frigid stance toward charters. No doubt they see dollar signs, plus the STEM bill is artfully crafted to minimize its offense to the unions and its dollar cost to school districts. Yet lawmakers need look only as far as Indiana and Michigan to see places where universities work closely with charter schools, in fact create and monitor them as sponsors. Ohio’s current charter law invites state universities to sponsor schools here, too, and nothing except timidity prevents O.S.U., say, or Wright State, or Cleveland State, or the rest of them from giving birth to STEM high schools via the charter route. One could readily imagine regional STEM initiatives led by universities in Ohio’s major cities, institutions better attuned to the needs of their students and communities than an appointed body located in Columbus. A tiny tweak of the charter law would allow community colleges and private universities to do the same.
Third, House Bill 695 in its current form lacks the same creativity and entrepreneurial spirit that it seeks to infuse into Ohio in the form of new businesses and jobs. Why create a centralized system of school governance when the goal is to propagate innovative high- quality secondary schools that meet the unique needs of children in Ohio’s different regions? The traditional districts need to be made to think this way--and the charter program needs to be fixed so it has the resources and quality-control to play its part, too.
Proponents of House Bill 695 are right to promote greater educational and economic opportunities for the next generation of Ohioans. The state urgently needs enterprise and the likeliest route is by becoming a science/technology powerhouse. Strengthening students’ knowledge and skills in STEM fields is crucial for that to happen. Yet the state already has the structures and mechanisms to do this. Ohio would be better served by revamping its charter program, redirecting its districts, engaging the state’s universities and business leaders in the creation of high-powered schools dedicated to excellence in math and science, and offering these schools the funding that they need to succeed.
by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Terry Ryan
Feature Q & A
E-School Primer
Internet schools or “e-schools” are a rapidly expanding sector of Ohio’s charter schools. Taking their inspiration from myriad distance learning programs across the country, the state’s e-schools provide parents another viable option for educating their children. Currently, there are seven statewide e-schools serving 21,000 students--and another 35 intra-district programs offering online courses to hundreds more.
Because instruction takes place in a “virtual” classroom and students often work from home, many people have only a vague notion about what e-schools are, who enrolls in them, and how they operate. To shed some light on Ohio’s e-school programs, Gadfly asked Susan Stagner, Head of School at Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA), to answer a few questions about the Buckeye State’s newest--and fastest growing--type of school.
________________________________
Gadfly: Describe a typical day in the life of an e-school student and teacher.
Stagner: An e-school student spends, on average, five dedicated hours to academic work each day--with some flexibility regarding when they complete their work. For instance, students may work for four hours on some days and seven hours on others. Each day, a student may be introduced to new material through a variety of mediums including traditional textbooks, online courses, live web courses, face-to-face tutoring sessions, or a combination of these. Students may also join their peers on a field trip to a museum or outdoor metro park.
A typical day for an e-school teacher is spent conducting a variety of instructional activities. Teachers hold scheduled live instructional lessons over the web whereby a group of students interact with the teacher in a virtual classroom. Other times, teachers may initiate a web tutoring session to provide individualized or small group instruction. In addition, teachers hold conference calls to parents and students to discuss student progress, lesson planning, subject-specific questions, and the evaluation of student work. Teachers may also communicate with families, administrators, and other teachers through email or through web conferencing tools; they utilize other online tools to record student attendance, monitor student progress, and review student lesson assessments for gaps or difficulties in student learning.
Gadfly: In what ways are e-schools held to the same standards of accountability as other schools?
Stagner: E-schools are held accountable for student academic achievement like every other public school in Ohio. They are required to meet federal No Child Left Behind standards as well as the state of Ohio’s academic accountability standards. All e-school students are required to participate in the state-mandated diagnostic, achievement, and Ohio Graduation Tests.
Additionally, e-schools are subject to several different audits (fiscal, special education, federal grant, etc.) like other public schools to ensure they comply with state law.
Gadfly: Why do you think a growing number of Ohio students are choosing to attend e-schools? What students are choosing e-schools?
Stagner: Ohio parents choose to enroll their students in e-schools for a variety of reasons. Often parents are dissatisfied with their child’s previous school--because their child(ren) was bored, bullied, or falling behind academically. Some parents say their child could not focus on learning in the previous classroom setting due to a personal health issue or peer distractions. Others may be concerned with the lack of discipline in their child’s previous school.
Many older students are choosing e-schools because they want the flexibility that an e-school offers. If disciplined, high school students who want or need to work can balance both more easily in an e-school environment than in the structured schedule required by a brick-and-mortar school. E-schools can also offer more individualized programs that help students fill learning gaps from their prior educational experiences.
Gadfly: How do e-schools get their funding? Should e-schools be funded at the same level as brick-and-mortar charters? Why or why not?
Stagner: In Ohio, e-schools are funded primarily by state foundation funding and like their brick-and-mortar counterparts, do not receive any local funding from property or income taxes. E-schools are eligible for federal and state grants but do not receive parity funds for economically disadvantaged children, gifted funds, or career technology funds.
E-schools should be funded at the same level as brick-and-mortar charters. While e-schools don’t have buildings, they do have teachers, technology and instructional transportation costs. A high quality e-school has to invest in state-of-the-art online and offline curriculum, sophisticated communication tools using a variety of technologies, computer server farms that require ongoing maintenance and support, and computer equipment for students and teachers.
E-school student funding is a matter of equity and fairness. Ohio is charged with providing access for all children to free and appropriate public education, not just some students.
Gadfly: The report Halfway Out the Door , which Fordham released last year, noted that only 21 percent of surveyed Ohioans think schools that “get state funding and allow students to do their work at home over the Internet, under adult supervision” were a good idea. How would you respond to this finding?
Stagner: E-schools are a new and very innovative way to attend a public school and will not be every family’s school of choice. Many people who have had no exposure to a quality e-school will find it hard to envision such programs. But when people experience quality e-schooling through a personal demonstration, most understand it and are excited about the opportunities to individualize learning paths for their children.
About OHVA
OHVA educates 3,800 students from across the state in grades K-12 and was rated “Effective” (the state’s second highest rating) in 2005-06 under Ohio’s accountability system. OHVA’s curriculum is supplied by K12, Inc., a national provider of online curriculum and academic support materials. (Note: Fordham president Chester E. Finn, Jr., sits on the board of K12, Inc.)
From the Front Lines
The Future of Educational Leadership
With so many voices singing KIPP’s praises over the last few months (see here, here, and here), it bears asking what impact KIPP might have on numerous other education systems. One answer may be found in KIPP’s School Leadership Program. And if this program offers a glimpse of the next generation of educational leadership in America, the future seems promising both for KIPP students and for those in any other schools willing to foster a similar ethos of education.
Readers of the Ohio Gadfly will know that Fordham plans to sponsor a KIPP charter school (or schools) in Columbus starting in 2008 (see here ). As part of this effort, I was invited by the KIPP Foundation to Houston to meet 22 finalists (culled from over 300 initial applicants) for slots in their 2007 Fisher’s Fellowship Class. Candidates selected to be Fisher Fellows will open new KIPP schools in 2008 in identified communities across the United States.
Exactly who applies to be a KIPP school leader? The 22 candidates that gathered in Houston for this three-day weekend hailed from a variety of backgrounds. Some were senior Teach for America members teaching in places like the Mississippi Delta or the toughest neighborhoods of New York City; some were vice-principals in traditional district schools or charter schools; some were former teachers, now working in business or government, yearning to return to education; and others were teachers or administrators in existing KIPP schools.
All candidates sat for a series of intense interviews, led by current KIPP school leaders from San Francisco, Atlanta, New York City, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, Houston and Helena, Arkansas. The interviewers peppered the prospective school leaders with hard and probing questions about their experience, suitability, and educational philosophies. These sessions culminated on Sunday morning (at 6:30 am sharp) in make-or-break interviews with KIPP founders David Levin and Michael Feinberg.
As an observer to KIPP’s leadership selection process, and during our brief moments of shared free time, I was able to speak with many of the candidates individually. Despite their diverse backgrounds and set of experiences, there was unanimity among them with regard to the weekend’s benefits--regardless of who would become a Fisher Fellow.
In fact, what made the experience so worthwhile for all involved--and the decision-making for KIPP no doubt arduous--was the fact that candidates had come from far and wide for a common cause, and that all of them shared, in varying degrees, the same core educational values and traits:
It’s fair to ask what they desire in return for a chance to be a KIPP leader. For dedicating their careers, and indeed much of their lives, to educational leadership, most were seeking the professional autonomy and independence to do what’s best for students, including:
If these candidates’ qualities seem rare, they are only exceptional because too many school cultures fail to foster them. As Ohio and the nation prepare to search for the next generation of educational leaders, there are undeniable lessons in KIPP’s process for organizations looking to recruit talented, results-oriented educators.
Consider why, at heart, these individuals “chose” KIPP. The candidates who journeyed to Houston did so because KIPP empowers and liberates young educators to take ownership of their schools and do what’s best to meet the learning needs of students. They did so because they are utterly aware of the realities of compliance burdens, angry parents, needy staff, hungry children, and the innumerable other factors that impact a typical school day in America. They did so because KIPP is one of several school models that, implemented well, can minimize these externalities so leaders and staff can focus on the instruction of children.
From 300 applicants, only a handful will become KIPP school leaders. Yet just as important as the candidates who will become KIPP school leaders are the young educators who will not. After all, they will not go home empty-handed; most will take the experience, along with the same values and desires that brought them to Houston, back to their current schools and organizations. One hopes these candidates will be given the chance to use them. For it is these values and desires that educators, administrators and policymakers must harness, and then turn loose, in Ohio and across the United States if we are to provide all of our children with an exceptional education in the years and decades to come.
by Terry Ryan
Reviews and Analysis
Education for Ohio’s Future
Educational philanthropists spend about $300 million each year on education initiatives--yet too little of this investment is aimed at reshaping education policy. The Ohio Grantmakers Forum (OGF), at least, is trying to change that with Education for Ohio's Future.
The goals pushed by OGF’s report are both noble and timely: mandate a seamless P-16 system with clear priorities, create world-class standards and stronger accountability measures, guarantee quality teachers and principals in every classroom and school, accelerate innovations and options available throughout the system, and ensure adequate funding tied to results.
The report presents some compelling data that Ohio’s current education system is failing to prepare all students to compete in a new global economy. For instance, only one-third of Ohio’s eighth-graders met National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) standards in reading and math; achievement gaps on state tests as large as 33 percentage points exist between white and African American third-, sixth-, and eighth-graders in reading and math; and only 25 percent of Ohio’s residents hold a four-year degree.
Recognizing state charters as one means for combating such dismal figures, OGF recommends some long overdue measures (first suggested here) for improving Ohio’s charter school program. Chief among them are shuttering chronically low-performing charter schools; holding all community school sponsors accountable through performance contracts (78 percent of sponsors are currently exempt from state evaluation); lifting geographic restrictions and caps on the number of charter schools allowed to operate; and providing greater financial support for charter schools, good ones especially.
While the report is packed with good ideas and worth careful consideration by policymakers, it stops short of offering the necessary details and focus required to implement substantial change. Yet what it does provide is a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities the state faces in educating future generations of Ohioans. It’s up to lawmakers, educators, and the rest of us to act on it.
Download a copy of the report here .
by Kristina Phillips-Schwartz
Hopes, Fears, and Reality: A Balanced Look at American Charter Schools in 2006
Though many critics continue to decry them, charters are not only here to stay, but expanding rapidly (to over 3600 nationwide in 2005-06). And this year ’s National Charter School Research Project (NCSRP) report explores, among other topics, the impact they are having on parents, districts, and other education stakeholders.
The news is mostly good. NCSRP’s survey of low- and moderate-income parents of charter school students in three major cities found that charter parents were more likely to select options outside their neighborhoods than other parents (85 percent versus 60 percent); more likely than their private school cohorts to choose schools based on academic factors (71 percent versus 58 percent); and more likely to be satisfied with their chosen schools than parents who selected other public schools (97 percent satisfied as opposed to 84 percent). Such findings debunk the myth that charter parents are ill-informed and easily duped by “flashy” new school programs.
In choice-abundant cities like Dayton (where 25 percent of students attend charters), school districts are improving their programs to compete with charter schools. Dayton Public Schools, in addition to raising its test scores last year, has created some attractive program options and ramped up efforts to communicate its strengths to choice-savvy parents. And amidst stiff competition for dwindling numbers of area students, Dayton Public will likely be forced to think more creatively and efficiently about its finances, facilities, and transportation services.
Yet successful charter schools require engaged and diligent sponsors--evidenced by the small number of both (at least in Ohio). Thus NCSRP recommends that sponsors set high standards for schools, take pains to study their progress, and work closely to support them. In return, sponsors must operate with transparency and should be held accountable for their performance.
As a retrospective, NCSRP’s report succeeds by ultimately looking forward--to how state charter programs can be strengthened; hopefully, policymakers and stakeholders in Ohio will do the same.
Download a copy of the report here .
by Quentin Suffren