A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
January 24, 2007, Volume 1, Number 27
Contents
Editorial
Editorial
An Amendment Adrift (and please don’t save it)
Ohio is teeming with chatter about education reform, thanks in no small part to recent efforts by teacher unions and various other school district associations to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to “fix” education funding.
Few folks are rushing to praise the amendment--and for good reasons. For one, there is little empirical evidence that spending more money on education leads to significant improvements in academic achievement. Consider that the United States has tripled its spending, in cost-adjusted per-student dollars, on education since 1960 without gaining significant improvements in student outcomes. And communities where education spending increased dramatically due to court decisions have failed to see any measurable improvements in academic achievement as a result (see here). Most famous is Kansas City, where in 1985, a federal judge gave the district carte blanche to spend as much state money as necessary to make the district successful. Over the next 12 years, the state and district spent nearly $2 billion to build new schools, improve classroom instruction, and bring student test scores up to the national norm. Despite spending that could put the most inveterate profligate to shame, the district posted no measurable gains in academic achievement. Similar scenarios have played out in Sausalito, CA; Cambridge, MA; and Washington, DC.
Ohio’s proposed constitutional amendment seeks significant new financial inputs, which would be borne by Ohio’s taxpayers--many of them citizens dependent on the state for financial support (the poor and elderly), without offering any hint as to how success for these new inputs can be measured. The only benchmark the amendment’s proponents offer is the term “high quality public education,” which is nebulously defined as “collectively, all educational components, programs and services necessary to prepare each Public School Pupil to carry out the duties of citizenship and function at the highest level of his or her abilities in post-high school education programs or gainful employment.” What’s more, the amendment would make this “high quality” education a fundamental constitutional right in Ohio, opening the door to a slew of lawsuits and ultimately leaving it to the state’s High Court to decide if the “high quality public education” standard has been met (a difficult enough task with the current “thorough and efficient” definition--and sure to be almost impossible under the proposed amendment's language).
The amendment, if successful, would also empower the State Board of Education and an appointed education funding committee to decide ultimately how much Ohio’s K-12 education program should cost. And if lawmakers fail to agree to the price tag, they could face action by the Ohio Supreme Court, whose role would shift from interpreter of state statutes and the constitution--to enforcer of State Board policy (see here and here). Thus the proposed amendment would, in large part, circumvent the legislative process and give a blank check to the State Board (and by proxy, an unelected committee)--with no guarantee that state dollars will be well spent or result in greater academic achievement.
It’s little wonder that legislators, big city mayors (some of whom previously supported the initiative) and business leaders have dismissed the amendment as a fiscal disaster-in-the-making, one that could raise taxes (Ohio's were already the third highest in the nation in 2006 as a percentage of income--see here), and force deep cuts in other basic services and programs in order to fund education. Even Governor Strickland has voiced concerns that the amendment grants too much authority to the State Board and fails to specify how increased spending will be funded (see here).
None of this is to say that the state’s education finance system shouldn’t be overhauled (read: weighted student funding--see here). But any serious funding “fixes” should also be targeted at raising academic achievement and ensuring that Ohio’s children are well prepared to meet the demands of college and workplace.
by Terry Ryan, Quentin Suffren
Guest Editorial
Changes Will Bring a New Order to OBR
Sometimes fundamental political changes can be identified months or years before they arrive. Like the dust raised by an ancient army of foot soldiers in the distance, everyone can plainly see what is to come, even if the outcome is unknown.
Other times, like earlier this month, change can happen in a few hours. In less than 24 hours on January 10-11, two press releases and a few newspaper articles signaled a nearly certain change in the basic structure of Ohio’s higher education governance. Assuming this change occurs, the only remaining questions concern its extent and long term implications.
Ohio’s current system of higher education coordination was established in 1963 with the creation of the Ohio Board of Regents (OBR). The Board has nine members serving staggered nine-year terms. For the most part, OBR has been populated with relatively distinguished Ohioans with an interest in higher education. OBR responsibilities include the distribution of both the public subsidy to state colleges, and state-funded need-based financial aid to students. The Board also has the authority to authorize independent nonprofit colleges and approve new degree programs at those institutions.
Yet OBR’s most important responsibility is the selection and supervision of the chancellor. The chancellor is a member of the governor’s cabinet--but unlike every other cabinet member, the chancellor is not selected by the governor. (Individual Board members are appointed by the governor, but under the current system, a Taft-selected majority of Regents would hold through Governor Strickland’s fourth year in office.)
The most recent chancellor was Rod Chu--a visionary with two important problems: many legislators resented Chu’s manner and what they saw as his unwillingness to listen. The practical effect was a gradual evaporation of support in the statehouse, first for Chu and then for OBR. By mid-2006, Chu had resigned. OBR immediately started a search for a new chancellor, and by December, six finalists had been selected. Five were outsiders who had spent their careers as bureaucrats with other states’ governing or coordinating boards, and the sixth was an Ohio insider of a similar mold. Interviews were scheduled for Tuesday, January 16, in Columbus.
The interviews never happened. On January 10, Speaker of the House Jon Husted released a four-paragraph statement to the press, citing the need for a new direction in higher education. He planned to provide that direction by giving the governor the authority to hire the chancellor. The Speaker asked that the Board call off final interviews, and said the House would soon introduce legislation to make that change a reality. Ninety minutes later, Governor Strickland issued a short statement to the press in support of Speaker Husted’s idea. Newspaper articles the next morning reported the support ofSenate President Bill Harris. Within a day, OBR cancelled the search. In one day, Ohio higher education policy changed irrevocably.
While legislative action will not likely be complete until at least March, the new chancellor will certainly be a direct appointee before the biennial budget is signed in June. Although the Speaker and governor have been careful to say that they only back a change in the chancellor’s status, political reality points toward more significant changes. Senior legislators harbor a general dissatisfaction with OBR that has grown with their inability to change the tuition-setting practices of public universities, and anecdotal complaints about public colleges’ prolific spending practices have been rampant.
Once the Speaker’s proposal becomes a bill, anything can happen. The bill will likely become a higher education catch-all. Options floated include eliminating the board itself, stripping functions from OBR such as higher education promotion and outreach, and forcing administrative restructuring of public institutions. Most politically charged would be any recommendation to strip the authority of the publicly appointed trustees of Ohio’s public colleges, and centralize that power with the new chancellor. Ohio is currently near the decentralized end of the state-control spectrum--with a coordinating board, but real power resting with individual institutions. While the state could conceivably spin off state institutions, much as Virginia has done with its flagship institution’s graduate schools, most other policy options entail transferring authority to the new chancellor.
At a meeting with nearly 80 of the state’s university presidents on Monday, Governor Strickland suggested that Ohio’s higher education sector needed to be a system focusing on access and student success, research and innovation, and workforce development. The rhetoric is broad enough to fit any number of potential visions for higher education in this state, and only the coming weeks will reveal his agenda. None of his comments, however, addressed the deep structural changes implicit in, and possible with, the shift of the chancellorship.
Some have and will continue to complain about the “politicization” of the chancellorship, but in reality, the chancellorship and OBR were politicized long ago. The Speaker’s proposal would simply change the nature of that politicization.
In hindsight, the dust cloud from the approaching army was quite clear. Speaker Husted and other legislators have been able to impact higher education policy only at the margins. Despite making their wishes public in very clear terms, OBR and chancellor resisted the legislature’s efforts to change the status quo. Whether the Board even had the power to make some of the desired changes in public institutions is, in a sense, immaterial. In the next few months, a new order will come to the Ohio Board of Regents in substance, if not in form.
by C. Todd Jones
President and General Counsel
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio (AICUO)
Reviews and Analysis
School Safety Expert Speaks in Dayton
School safety is one issue that brings together all educators, regardless of their affiliation with charter, district or private schools. This point was proved in Dayton last week, when over 120 school leaders, administrators, staff and concerned citizens attended a school safety seminar hosted by Fordham and the University of Dayton’s School of Education and Allied Professions. Featured speakers included Kenneth S. Trump, president of the National School Safety and Security Services and nationally recognized advocate for emergency preparedness planning and crisis prevention.
Participants heard a number of good reasons to take school safety seriously: aggressive behavior is on the rise; funding for school safety is on the decline (despite the violent tragedies in places like Littleton, Colorado and at the Amish West Nickel Mines School in Pennsylvania); and just 57 percent of students feel “very safe” at school, according to a December 2006 poll (see here). With roughly 20 percent of America’s population (including students, teachers, staff and parents) in schools everyday, school safety can be compromised by a host of both internal and external threats (gang violence, terrorist attacks, disturbed individuals, etc.).
These facts may send some school administrators on shopping sprees for high tech surveillance cameras and metal detectors--and perhaps rightly so. Yet Mr. Trump emphasized that threats to school safety can also be contained, and even prevented, by smart planning, comprehensive preparation, and continuous practice. Indeed, it’s sometimes the low-tech measures that may ultimately keep children safe from harm: training staff (including cafeteria workers and bus drivers) in emergency procedures; conducting “table top” drills of school safety plans to ensure effectiveness and expose potential problems; practicing “lockdown” drills with students; clearly numbering school buildings and classrooms for easy identification; and creating efficient schoolwide communication networks. Couple these and other measures with ongoing student involvement and the result can be schools that are safe places for children to learn.
Also featured was Dayton Police Department’s Lieutenant Robert Chabali, who explained how officers react to violent threats and what to expect from police units should a school crisis occur. Dayton Public Schools Superintendent Percy Mack discussed the importance of listening to students, who often know about threats before adults. And Centerville City Schools Coordinating Principal Eileen Booher spoke to the importance of school safety plans being “living documents”--constantly revised and updated to reflect a school’s changing circumstances. For those in attendance, the Dayton seminar was a clear reminder that creating safe and secure learning environments is critical to helping students achieve academic success.
by Quentin Suffren
Opening Doors: How Low-Income Parents Search for the Right School
The latest report from the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) addresses the notion (often voiced by critics of choice initiatives) that low-income parents don’t make informed school choice decisions. Researchers asked 800 low- to moderate-income parents in Milwaukee, Washington, D.C., and Denver how they gathered information and made decisions about available schooling options. Survey results showed that low-income parents engaged in a significant amount of information gathering, and considered school performance as an important factor when making decisions. Low-income parents also relied on multiple sources of information and were generally satisfied with the school choice decisions they make (much like the more affluent parents surveyed).
Yet large numbers of low-income parents still preferred and trusted “soft data” (word-of-mouth, school observations, culture, etc.) more than test scores as an indicator of academic quality. And the lowest-income parents (those with incomes below $20,000 per year) gathered less information about options, reported lower levels of satisfaction with their choices, and believed they would benefit the most from access to a paid counselor or parent information centers. (Parents in Dayton have Greatschools.net, which publishes My School Chooser, a user-friendly guide to area school programs, and also trains parent leaders to help low-income parents through the school choice process.)
CRPE’s findings reveal that low-income parents, while far from uninformed consumers, still need greater access to information and resources to select the best options for their children. Ohio policymakers looking to assist them can start by reading the report, available here.
Recommended Reading
Proficiency Has Its Price
Ohio’s Coshocton City Schools has taken performance pay in a whole new direction--offering elementary school students as much as $100 for solid test scores ($15 for each “proficient,” and $20 for each “accelerated” or “advanced” on the state’s five tests). Entire grades of elementary students are selected by lottery each year to participate in the incentive program, funded by the foundation of local businessman Robert E. Smith. The program, now in its third year, is a hit with district students and teachers, and Coshocton has maintained its “Effective” rating (the state's second highest rating) under Ohio's accountability system. Critics, however, contend that paying students to perform will kill their internal motivation for success and love of learning. But Coshocton superintendent Wade Lucas maintains that “if we can make a difference for our kids and give our teachers another motivating tool, then I think it’s a program worth continuing.” A study to be released this summer will help determine the program’s impact and future. If the findings are positive, proficiency (and the increased focus on academics that hopefully comes with it) in Coshocton might just be worth the price.
“Calculating the Cost of Paying for Grades,” by Scott Stephens, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 21, 2007.
“Ohio District Tests Performance Pay--for Students,” by Debra Viadero, Education Week (registration required), January 17, 2007.
Announcements
KIPP School Leadership Opportunities: New Schools Opening in Columbus
Do you do whatever it takes for children to learn? Do you want to have a lasting impact? Do you want the power to make it happen?
Columbus has been selected as a new KIPP schools site--the first one in Ohio--beginning in 2008. Planning for the eventual launch of five schools in Columbus has already begun, and KIPP is currently seeking outstanding educators to fill school leader roles. School leaders receive a year of extensive training through KIPP’s School Leadership Program starting in July 2007, with the goal of starting a school in the summer of 2008.
KIPP schools are high-performing college preparatory public schools that ensure impressive academic gains in historically underserved communities. KIPP students around the country are developing the knowledge, skills, character, and habits necessary for success in high school, college, and the competitive world beyond.
Learn more about KIPP school leadership opportunities here.
Errata
Correction
In the January 10th editorial “Focus on Instructional Time, Not School Days,” we asserted that over six years ("say from 1st to 7th grade"), students in Houston Independent School District spend a full year more in school than their peers in Cleveland. That span of time (from 1st to 7th grade) is actually seven years and the resulting difference in school time is about 77 days (using Cleveland’s school day)--not a full year. As Gadfly goes in search of a new abacus, you can find more commentary on the school day/time debate here.