A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
February 28, 2007, Volume 1, Number 29
Contents
Guest Editorial
Guest Editorial
Ohio Needs a World-Class Education System
On February 13, 2007, Achieve, Inc., presented to the Ohio State Board of Education a study of education policy, entitled Creating a World-Class Education System in Ohio. An earlier benchmarking study for Ohio in 1999 had evaluated the state’s educational reform strategies at the time against the best domestic practices and has contributed substantially to Ohio’s progress over the past eight years. A decade ago, Ohio was essentially stuck in the middle when compared to other states. On cross-state comparisons of current National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, Ohio is now in the top quarter of states.
The new Achieve study is responsive to the State Board’s focus on understanding the implications of the new global economy for K-12 education in Ohio. No state has felt the impact of the globalizing economy more than Ohio. With the continual decline of manufacturing jobs, Ohio has struggled to move toward a knowledge-based economy. The fastest-growing and highest paying jobs require higher levels of education. The state’s ability to regain its economic competitiveness is dependent on the ability of its schools to provide a world-class education to its citizens, and not simply a strong education when compared to other states. This perception is shared by Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, who on November 7, 2006, proclaimed the importance of “building an education system, from pre-school through college, that doesn’t just compete with our neighbors like Indiana and Kentucky, but rivals the best in the world…”
It is against this backdrop that the State Board requested a study that would take stock of current education policy by comparing Ohio’s K-12 system with the best in the world and provide the state with recommendations for closing any gaps. To my knowledge this is the first study of a state system that employs benchmarking to international best practices. Achieve engaged Sir Michael Barber (former education and domestic policy advisor to British Prime Minister Tony Blair) and McKinsey and Company (an international management consulting firm) to assist with international benchmarking.
The Achieve study both validates the efforts that Ohio has undertaken in the past years and makes clear that without substantial, comprehensive, and coherent reform, the state’s K-12 education system will not be positioned to deliver high quality educational opportunities for all students, and thus will not support economic growth for Ohio. The study identifies three defining elements of the highest performing educational systems—high challenge, high support, and aligned incentives—which become the touchstones for the international benchmarking and the foundation for the report’s recommendations. These elements validate that Ohio has been on the right track. Our strategic plan over the past seven or eight years has been built around raising the bar (high challenge), building capacity (high support), and measuring results (aligned incentives).
The study’s recommendations represent a comprehensive set of initiatives that will move Ohio from current practice toward best international practices. They are grouped into seven clusters that address standards and assessments, principals as instructional leaders, teacher development and support, student support and motivation, equitable funding linked to accountability, school and district ratings and interventions, and access to high quality school options.
The combination of high challenge, high support, and aligned incentives integrates the seven sets of recommendations into a comprehensive reform package that fully implemented, greatly enhances the impact of any single measure. For example, the report calls for expanded student access to high quality choice options but links this recommendation to proposals for improved means and information for parents to take advantage of them; more rigorous performance-based entry and exit standards for charter schools; lower non-performance based barriers for new schools; and greater accountability for EdChoice voucher schools.
The Achieve report also avers that Ohio must address school funding, but that this must be done while attending to allocation and accountability for those funds. To this end, the study calls for measuring, benchmarking, and evaluating school-level efficiency; driving fiscal resources to the building level based on the number and needs of its students; revising the funding formula to more accurately account for the true costs of educating each student; providing a predictable revenue stream to each school; and periodically adjusting the funding system based on an ongoing empirical review. (These recommendations were echoed in the State Board’s recent report “A New Direction for Ohio’s School Funding: Designing a System that Relates Resources to Results.”) The recommendation to empower principals as instructional leaders dovetails with a call for funds to be allocated to the building level. Recommendations related to accountability, school intervention, and schooling options are interwoven with funding and resource allocation—fiscal support tied to results.
The State Board is committed to building on the strong K-12 results of the past eight years to realize an education system that ensures the preparation of our young people as well as the vitality of our state. Over the next several months the State Board of Education is undertaking a public engagement campaign to share the recommendations of the Achieve study and secure the input and feedback of the public regarding the report. We know that the State Board cannot implement this agenda alone. We will need partners—including elected officials and education groups. The State Board is ready to propose initiatives that are transformative—not for the sake of being transformative, but because in today’s rapidly changing world, Ohio cannot afford to be satisfied with incremental improvements.
by Jennifer Sheets
President, Ohio State Board of Education
Capital Matters
Cold Comfort
Though most Ohioans are still thawing out from weeks of frosty weather, Columbus has been bustling with activity as many elected officials considered (or proposed themselves) a number of education initiatives--all claiming to improve Ohio’s education system.
Most notable was the release of the new policy report Creating a World-Class Education System in Ohio by Achieve, Inc. (see here and above). Prepared by the international consulting group McKinsey & Company and authored by former British education adviser Sir Michael Barber, the report lays out a comprehensive, integrated and outcomes-based approach for transforming Ohio’s K-12 program into a leading education system by 2015. None too soon, we say. The state’s current system masks wide achievement gaps among student subgroups and is struggling to prepare Ohio’s youngster for the demands of college and workplace. “Despite the progress Ohio has made in student achievement, the pace of improvement needs to escalate drastically,” Barber told State Board of Education members.
Whether state policymakers will embrace the McKinsey team’s bold vision remains to be seen, but comments so far are promising. C.J. Prentiss, former state senator and Strickland’s education aide, noted, “I will report back to the governor ‘Good News’…This is a road map for what we need to do” (see here). State Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Zelman insisted that state education officials have little choice but to push for change. Yet State Board member John Bender questioned the feasibility of implementing the report’s recommendations. “I still don’t see the political will,” he said (see here). Let’s hope he looks harder. Turning this vision into reality will require broad implementation of the recommendations (as opposed to “cherry-picking” the most politically expedient), and solid bipartisan support.
Such bipartisanship has been markedly absent from recent dealings on Capitol Square. Governor Strickland and Speaker John Husted are engaging in a tug-of-war over education funding (and the extent to which it needs repair--see here). Sharply critical of Ohio’s education funding system during his gubernatorial campaign, Governor Strickland has been reticent about putting forth solutions to fix it. To draw him out, Speaker Husted and Senate President Bill Harris designated House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 1 for Strickland’s unannounced education funding reform proposal (see here). The governor quickly condemned the move as “political gamesmanship” and partisan politics. Meanwhile, we’ve signaled our preference--a weighted student funding system (see here)--one that’s been echoed in the recent Achieve report.
The ill-conceived constitutional amendment to “fix” Ohio’s funding system (by pouring gobs more money into it--see here) met with a chilly reception from House and Senate Republicans. Citing a report by the nonpartisan Legislative Service Committee, Speaker Husted condemned the amendment, which, if passed, could cost the state about $1.84 billion in fiscal year 2007 alone. None of this new funding would be tied to student outcomes or measurable results. Considering that Ohioans are split on raising taxes (see here), this amendment may just end up in the deep freeze (for good, we hope).
Undaunted, it seems, by moves to transfer control of its chancellorship to the governor (see here), the Ohio Board of Regents (OBR) recently aired a new proposal requesting sweeping new powers to oversee tuition hikes and cut duplicative degree programs at the state’s colleges and universities (see here). Reactions were mixed, and Governor Strickland noted that his and Speaker Husted’s earlier actions have “awakened the Board of Regents to the point where they are trying to play catch-up.” It may be too late, though, as Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2 would both transfer most of OBR’s power to the appointed chancellor--and relegate OBR to advisory board status.
State Board member Tom Sawyer was appointed to the Ohio Senate to fill the seat of Kimberly Zurz, who was named director of the Department of Commerce by Governor Strickland (see here). In November, Sawyer ousted Deborah Owens Fink, in part, by winning the “Darwinian vote” (see here). Sawyer’s evolution will give the governor a chance to fill a State Board seat with a hand-picked appointee. Perhaps his choice will help divine Governor Strickland’s thoughts on education reform.
With Governor Strickland set to address the state and submit his biennial budget, Ohioans can look forward to plenty of March Madness (the Buckeyes notwithstanding) in the coming weeks.
by Kristina Phillips-Schwartz, Quentin Suffren
Reviews and Analysis
A New STEM Class for Ohio
When it comes to preparing Ohioans for the demands of the modern workplace, “Good enough is no longer good enough,” write the co-chairs of the Science and Math Education Policy Advisory Council (SAMEPAC). Especially when those demands arise in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) disciplines.
Formed by the Ohio Board of Regents, the Ohio Department of Education and the Governor’s office in 2005, the Council was tasked with identifying the most critical issues facing science and mathematics education, and making recommendations to improve them with an eye on Ohio’s current budget realities and future economic prosperity. The result is “Science and Mathematics: A Formula for 21st Century Success ,” which lays out a comprehensive plan for increasing Ohio’s capacity to educate and employ its citizens in STEM fields. In particular, SAMEPAC offers five strategies for improving science and math education and developing Ohio’s youngsters into the world-class talent new economy businesses need:
1. Expand public awareness and understanding of the importance mathematics and science. Just 55 percent of Ohioans polled in 2006 (see here) said that high schools should prepare all students for college. In the same year, just 28 percent of state high schoolers enrolled in upper level science courses. The public awareness campaign would address the link between advanced math and science skills and future economic opportunities--and target parents and students early.
2. Increase the number of students who take courses and master high-level mathematics and science subjects, and pursue STEM careers. New STEM schools, online courses for rural and urban schools, and redesigned entry-level STEM courses in colleges and universities would expand students’ access to STEM disciplines. Monitoring and providing extra resources to effective postsecondary STEM programs would help ensure they succeed in them.
3. Improve the quality of mathematics and science education. To attract more high quality STEM teachers, the Council proposes using incentives such as differentiated pay linked to hard-to-staff positions and overall teacher effectiveness. SAMEPAC also advocates additional funding for successful teacher education programs.
4. Strengthen the interaction between postsecondary instructional and research programs and the business sector. SAMEPAC recommends establishing university-business advisory councils and creating a Web-based clearinghouse for student internship and teacher externship opportunities in STEM fields. For teachers especially, externships at businesses and universities would provide hands-on learning experiences and improve overall content knowledge.
5. Build the state’s capacity to drive improvement in mathematics and science learning, and to fuel economic growth. To do this, the Council recommends creating the Institute for Math and Science Education (IMSE), whose tasks would include collecting and analyzing data on Ohio’s science and math education efforts. SAMEPAC also envisions partnerships among IMSE, regional service centers and other support agencies that would make delivery of critical assistance and information both timely and efficient.
Not all of the report’s recommendations merit approbation. For instance, funneling more money to teacher education programs may do little to attract candidates who already have degrees and experience in STEM fields. Money might be better spent on alternative licensure initiatives that target candidates possessing critical content knowledge and mid-career professionals interested in teaching. And if past efforts are a guide (see here) creating a new STEM school system could be both costly and redundant, given that Ohio’s charter school program already offers a suitable mechanism for such schools--evidenced by innovative district efforts like the Dayton Early College Academy and the Columbus Metro High School. (Indeed, Texas has used charters to grow its STEM program, and top-flight STEM schools like California’s High Tech High also utilize the charter model).
These caveats aside, many of the report’s recommendations are in line with those proposed by the more expansive Achieve policy study. Both call for revising state standards, raising academic and professional expectations, offering meaningful professional learning opportunities to teachers, and expanding access for all students to high quality programs. Add an upgraded, internationally benchmarked assessment system (as outlined in the Achieve study), and the Council’s recommendations could very well swell the ranks of young Ohioans entering and succeeding in STEM courses and careers. (Yet it should be noted that first-rate STEM schools like the Illinois Math and Science Academy and Denver School of Science and Technology provide students an excellent education in the liberal arts as well.)
Along with the Achieve study, SAMEPAC’s report is growing proof that, after many years of piecemeal efforts and quick-fix schemes, Ohio may finally be ready for the comprehensive, integrated reforms its education system (and economy) so desperately needs.
by Quentin Suffren
Teacher Compensation in Charter and Private Schools: Snapshots and Lessons for District Public Schools
Most successful enterprises utilize every tool in their toolbox to ensure that their organization flourishes--including leveraging dollars to attract, support and retain talented employees. Yet, as this report notes, school leaders in a majority of schools across the county (and in Ohio) lack the freedom to use compensation as a tool to pursue their objectives. They must rely on set salary schedules, usually negotiated through district collective bargaining agreements, to compensate teachers.
Charter and private school networks, on the other hand, take a more practical approach to compensation. Many adjust salaries based on position type and local market realities by offering higher pay for hard-to-staff positions, performance pay and bonuses, as well as more creative incentives such as YMCA memberships or travel gift certificates. Salary schedules exist, but usually only serve as a guide for teacher compensation. School leaders usually have the last say in how much teachers are paid (unheard of in most traditional districts). The result is greater flexibility for school leaders to meet the academic needs of students.
The report proposes a “two-track strategy” to help districts adopt innovative compensation practices: 1) current salary schedules could be modified to incorporate performance- and market-driven elements; and 2) a group of schools could pilot more flexible compensation plans in exchange for greater accountability measures. School officials and open-minded union leaders can read the full report here.
by Kristina Phillips-Schwartz
Recommended Reading
Note to the Bard: Leave ?Nasty Man? at Home
“At every word, a reputation dies,” wrote 18th century poet Alexander Pope in his epic parody The Rape of the Lock. Too bad Princeton High School assistant principal Sean Yisrael failed to heed Pope’s words. Yisrael was recently put on administrative leave for sharing his verse (from his self-published book Words of a Poet) with two students—who promptly copied and distributed it around the Sharonville, Ohio high school. Several parents who read the poems cried foul and swiftly accused Ysirael of peddling pornography. Turns out a few of the poems contained sexual content and bore suggestive titles such as “I Like Big Women,” “The Nasty Man in Me,” and “Is It a Crime?” And while the answer to the latter seems to be “no,” Ysirael could lose his job. School district officials have yet to decide his fate. In his favor, Princeton School District spokesperson (and suspected Yisrael groupie) Robyn Allgeyer stated, “It’s [Yisrael’s work] not pornography. It’s poetry that includes some parts that are of a sexual nature.” Gadfly is no literary critic, but perhaps next time Mr. Yisrael might shun the muse--or just leave his “Nasty Man” at home.
“Sexual Poetry Causes Uproar,” by Michael D. Clark, The Cincinnati Enquirer, February 22, 2007.
Announcements
Fordham Sponsorship Looking to Grow
The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation is pleased to announce that it has signed a preliminary agreement with Building Excellent Schools Fellow Andrew Boy to sponsor a new school in Columbus, Ohio. Set to open in fall of 2008, Columbus Collegiate Academy will serve children in grades six through eight and prepare students to enter, succeed in, and graduate from the most demanding high schools and colleges.
the new report by Achieve, Inc.
Contents
Editorial
Editorial
DPS Levy Deserves to Pass
It’s no secret that my colleagues and I at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation have been critics of the Dayton Public Schools (DPS) over the past decade and have done our best--not good enough--to help create sound educational alternatives for kids whose prospects were blighted by the system’s disabilities.
This wasn’t ill-will, much less an animus toward public education. It was quite simply that DPS had languished for years as Ohio’s lowest performing public school district (618th out of 618); the district spent less than 50 percent of its budget on instruction, which included scant attention to academic achievement; and, despite clear signs of distress, it seemed all but immune to reform.
The Council of the Great City Schools, an advocate and support organization for large urban districts, succinctly summed up the situation in early 2002: “Dayton Public Schools are in crisis. Student achievement is low. Funding is tenuous. Buildings are dilapidated. And the public is clearly looking at its options. Without change, parents will find or create them. The warning signs are everywhere.”
Then things began to change. Today DPS is far from where it needs to get, but its performance is strengthening and important milestones are being passed. This gradual turnaround began when the reform-minded Kids First slate, led by Gail Littlejohn, took command of the school board five years ago and selected Dr. Percy Mack to serve as the district’s new superintendent.
Since that time, the Dayton Public Schools have made slow but steady progress toward academic achievement. The reform team has put into place a cohesive academic strategy; increased the amount of money targeted at instruction to more than 60 percent; raised test scores; and last year moved out of Academic Emergency (the state’s lowest academic rating) and up two notches to Continuous Improvement (the equivalent of a “C”). Responding both to academic common sense and to competition from area private and charter schools, DPS has created several new and innovative school programs like the all-girls Charity Adams School, Dayton Early College Academy and Dayton Technology Design High School. An awesome school-construction program is underway.
At the same time, DPS has also made some painful job cuts (the most recent announced this month) in an effort to right size its operation. And despite real pressure and strike threats from the Dayton Education Association, DPS board members have kept salaries within bounds. In tough fiscal times, laying employees off and reining in new spending, while manifestly unpleasant decisions, represent both competent leadership and good stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
To remain on its reformist course, DPS now needs help from the city’s taxpayers. A 15-mill operating levy will be on the May ballot. The last levy was passed way back in 1992. If passed, the operating levy would provide Dayton Public Schools with an additional $30 million per year to continue its reform efforts, raise the quality of instruction in its schools, and secure the district’s finances. If it fails the district faces a litany of bad choices, and its future would be in doubt.
The reformers at the district’s helm have earned the opportunity to stay on course. Yes, Dayton voters and taxpayers, including the city’s business and civic leaders, will need to be vigilant as these dollars are spent. Many tough challenges lie ahead and nobody will benefit if the district slips back into its old ways. But some additional time is needed to turn this aircraft carrier.
In 2005, the Council of the Great City Schools conducted a second review of DPS and its programs. The progress they saw was encouraging. “Understand,” the reviewers wrote, “that the district was very broken but it’s now on the mend. Improvement will take some time and considerable community involvement and support.” DPS leadership has been doing its part. Now it’s time for other Daytonians to do theirs.
A similar version of this editorial was featured in the February 6th issue of the Dayton Daily News.
by Terry Ryan
Special Education Solutions for Charters
One of the toughest challenges facing charter schools, in Ohio and elsewhere, is the demands of serving children with special needs. Charter schools, like their district counterparts, educate any and all students who come to them (a fact still lost on many critics). When a youngster has special needs that require additional services, the charter school is required by state and federal law to provide them. The school receives state and federal aid to do so, but even with financial support, this can be daunting for a stand-alone school that serves only 200 or 300 students.
Providing quality special education services, as any charter or district coordinator can attest, is no simple matter. Special education is not just a set of programs delivered to students, but a comprehensive process for identifying, evaluating and monitoring (on a continual basis) the needs of students with disabilities ranging from mild or moderate to severe. Teachers and intervention specialists must identify and work with parents to refer an identified student for an evaluation. A psychologist, either on staff or contracted, must then evaluate him or her by assessing a broad range of cognitive, emotional and motor skills. Based on the evaluation, the school’s special education staff, along with the psychologist, educators and others, must then create an Individual Education Plan (IEP). The IEP will dictate the types of instruction and assistance the students should receive, and lists the goals and objectives for future progress.
Once a student’s IEP is developed, only then can programs and services be engaged to meet his or her unique needs. These programs and services can run the gamut, depending on the nature and severity of the disability--from one-on-one time with intervention specialists and pull-out sessions with speech pathologists or behavior therapists, to an entirely different education program that may necessitate clinical or medical support.
The challenge for many charter schools is how to provide the variety of services students might need (rarely can these needs be met by one individual) with limited financial resources, and absent the large-scale special education infrastructure available to school districts that serve thousands or even tens of thousands of children. Yet to do so is not only required by law, but also an integral function of ensuring all children receive a comprehensive and high quality education (the very reason many parents choose to enroll their students in charters in the first place).
Many charters in Ohio currently purchase special education services from their sponsors or authorizers. While this may seem a mutually beneficial arrangement for schools and their sponsors, it is less than ideal and potentially even unethical. It creates serious conflicts of interests for a charter school sponsor to sell academic (as well as financial or organizational) services to schools, and then hold them accountable for performance that has been driven in part by those services. Furthermore, a school might find itself unable to complain about services to the sponsor/provider for fear that such complaints might jeopardize the school’s standing. Schools could be even be pressured into buying services, regardless of their quality, from unscrupulous authorizers.
Other arrangements may include partnering with local service providers like hospitals or universities and buying à la carte services from county educational service centers or consultants. Yet even these piece-meal options can leave charters scrambling to find critical support for special education--including leadership training, special education teacher recruitment, and help navigating state and federal law. Additional support might consist of direct access to part-time therapists, psychologists and already scarce intervention specialists; ongoing professional development for special and general education teachers; access to external resources like clinical services and facilities; and programs for English Language Learners (ELL) requiring speech and language development services.
While there is no quick fix for this complex and growing challenge (indeed, more students are being identified with special needs each year), two options, among others, might be worth considering by school operators, policymakers, and charter school support organizations. The first is a Shared Special Education Director Program (discussed in detail in this Project Intersect report), which offers support to member schools seeking to build organizational capacity. A Shared Special Education Director Program provides schools with administrative, legal, and financial assistance to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. It also offers training to school staff about their roles and responsibilities in educating students with special needs. The Minnesota Department of Education currently operates such a program (through the Minnesota Charter Schools Special Education Project), whereby charter schools can purchase various levels of support based on their needs (general services are free). While not providing services directly to students, a Shared Special Education Director Program can alleviate many of the administrative and organizational demands facing schools, allowing school leaders and special education staff to focus more readily on instruction.
The second, more comprehensive option is a charter school special education cooperative or consortium. Under this model, a cooperative receives member schools’ special education funding directly (on a voluntary basis), and then provides needed special education services to their students. For charters who need specialists or programs on a part-time basis, the cooperative allows schools to share staff and services in a more cost efficient manner. Compelling models of such cooperatives already exist in Florida, Washington, DC and California. Across the line in Indiana, Ball State University’s Virtual Special Education Cooperative (VSEC) provides its charter school members with an array of programs and services, a large portion of which can be delivered online or via video conferencing. VSEC also retains a cadre of coordinators and therapists that can provide on-site therapeutic services, assessments and skills training to students--as well as professional development to teachers.
Through similar innovative partnerships and some creative thinking, Ohio’s charters could gain valuable assistance and guarantee their special education students reliable access to high quality programs and services.
From the Front Lines
Ohio’s Leaky College Pipeline
Ohio’s college pipeline has sprung a leak--and both high schools and colleges are struggling to make good on the promise to educate (and graduate) their students. That was the message gleaned from the recent ACT Ohio conference and a compelling keynote address by the Education Trust’s director (and 2007 Fordham Prize winner) Kati Haycock.
The challenges facing the state’s high schools are plain to see. Just 45 percent of Ohio students taking the ACT and graduating in 2006 scored well enough on the math portion to succeed in college level algebra (see here). This figure drops to 32 percent for Hispanic students and 13 percent for African Americans. Only 24 percent of test-takers scored well enough on all four sections (English, math, reading and science) to be deemed fully ready for college (compared to 15 percent of Hispanics and 4 percent of African Americans). Too many Ohioans never graduate from high school at all. In 2003, Ohio's graduation rate was just 73 percent for all students--and 51 percent for African Americans (see here).
For those who do graduate, the rising cost of college in the Buckeye State may still place a postsecondary degree out of reach. In 2006-07, tuition at Ohio’s four-year universities was 47 percent higher than the national average; tuition at two-year colleges was 54 percent higher (see here). Such inflated prices can, in part, be traced back to Ohio’s lower subsidy of higher education, compared to other states. Ohio ranks 40th among the 50 states for its per-student higher education appropriation. In 2005, it contributed just $0.34 for every dollar of federal Pell grants to low-income students (the median of the five most generous states was $0.82 per dollar--see here).
Assuming students do matriculate, lackluster success rates (determined by students’ degree attainment) are a troublesome legacy for many universities. Just 36 percent of Ohio’s first-time, full-time freshman (in fall 1999) went on to graduate with a bachelor’s degree after four years; that figure rose to just 56 percent after six years. Minority students fare much worse, with just 17 percent graduating in four years, and 36 percent after six. Ohio University had some of the highest success rates among state public universities, graduating 70 percent of all students and 69 percent of its under-represented minority students over six years in 2004. The Ohio State University’s main campus posted an overall six-year success rate of 62 percent and graduated 47 percent of it minority students. The University of Akron graduated just 35 percent overall, and only 18 percent of its minority students over six years (see here).
Many initiatives to improve such dismal figures focus on high schools, and rightly so. The recently passed Ohio Core, for instance, will hopefully ensure that students are much better prepared for the demands of college coursework. And the creation of a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) system of schools, if done sensibly (see here), could very well offer students valuable opportunities to pursue a rigorous college preparatory curriculum. But one thing was made clear by Ms. Haycock and others at the recent ACT Ohio conference. To mend and strengthen the state’s college pipeline, colleges and universities will need more attention (and scrutiny) from policymakers and the general public, particularly in the areas of student access, retention and success--not to mention overall value for student (or parent) and taxpayer dollars.
by Quentin Suffren
Reviews and Analysis
On the Clock: Rethinking the Way Schools Use Time
Time in school matters, but how time is spent matters even more. So says the latest report from the Education Sector, which examines the amount and quality of time students spend in school. As more districts and schools struggle to improve student learning and close achievement gaps, many are revamping their schedules to infuse more time into the school day and year--for good reason, too. There is a strong correlation between increased academic learning time and student achievement. Extra learning time can also help low-income students keep pace with their more affluent peers, a premise borne out by a number of KIPP schools (KIPP’s strong academic culture, school leadership and rigorous curriculum play a part as well).
Yet the amount of “academic learning time” (when students are actively engaged in learning, not just at present school) students get can vary widely in many schools (from 4 to 52 minutes per class period) and often represents but a small portion of the time spent at school. Indeed, students in Chicago’s public schools received just 240 minutes of instruction per day, a full hour short of the state mandate--mainly due to prolonged class start-up procedures, needless disruptions and weak classroom management.
To increase student learning time and justify the increased costs of extra hours in school, the report recommends that districts and schools generate data about the use of school time, tie extra time to clearly defined goals, and consider existing options (such as after-school programs). Useful, if not novel advice. One just hopes that Ohio’s policymakers (such as Rep. Thom Collier--see here) and educators will heed it. The report is available here.
by Quentin Suffren
Recommended Reading
Equity on the Horizon in Arizona
A new bill making its way through the legislature in Arizona would provide state charter schools with the same amount of funding as traditional public schools. The proposed legislation would increase per-pupil funding by $852 for charters serving K-8 students, and $993 for charter high schools. All additional funding would be provided by the state. Critics of the bill argue that charters will receive more state funding than traditional district schools. Yet supporters point out that Arizona’s charters (like those in other states--Ohio, among them) cannot levy local property taxes as districts do. Arizona school districts raise an average of $1,155 per student from local bonds and levies. The bill cleared the Senate Education Committee after a vote along partisan lines (with all but one Democrat voting against the measure) and awaits a vigorous debate in the state senate. Despite Arizona’s efforts to “equalize” charter and district school funding, it’s unlikely Ohio’s lawmakers will budge on higher budgets for its charters (despite our recommendations). That’s too bad. For as even one skeptical Arizona lawmaker conceded, equal funding for charters “is an inherent issue of fairness.”
“$80M Boost Eyed for Charter Schools,” by Daniel Scarpinato, The Arizona Daily Star, February 1, 2007.
Announcements
Fordham West Wants You
Fordham’s Dayton office is looking for a talented Project Administrator to join its small team of dedicated Ohio staffers. The Project Administrator will directly support Fordham’s charter school sponsorship activities and perform other general office management duties. A full position description is available here.
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 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.