THE
OHIO EDUCATION GADFLY
A Bi-Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Volume 1, Number 43. October 17, 2007
Current
Issue On the Web
Past
Issues On the Web
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Education 101: Children cannot vote
Politicians in Ohio, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, all too often use education and children as pawns for adult interests. Exhibit A is the recent lawsuit brought by Attorney General Marc Dann against three Dayton charter schools. The AG, citing "a continued failure to educate children," asked the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court to shut the schools because they were failing to deliver as public charitable trusts and that he was acting to protect the children.
Exhibit B is Republican Columbus mayoral candidate Bill Todd's lawsuit against the Columbus Public Schools and the Ohio Department of Education claiming they maintain "an unfair and inequitable system of education."
The attorney general's claims were dubious from the start. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, fully 80 percent of children attending the Dayton Public Schools sit in a school rated either academic emergency (F) or academic watch (D) in the state's school-grading system (see here). In Dayton, simply closing a few woefully performing charter schools mid-year and assuming that their several hundred pupils can easily migrate to better schools is at best ill-informed decision making and, at worst, calculating and self-serving.
It wasn't just Dann's interests being served, though. The attorney general was acting not at the behest of education-deprived families or children in the schools or at the urging of the Ohio Department of Education, which monitors pupil achievement, but at the suggestion--and with the counsel--of the state's major teacher union, the Ohio Education Association (OEA). The OEA represents the interests of 131,000 adults who make their living working for district schools that compete with charter schools for students and state tax dollars. According to records obtained by the Columbus Dispatch, the OEA agreed to settle a lawsuit against the state (a case the AG's office was likely to win) in return for Dann bringing suit against troubled charter schools. An OEA staff attorney even suggested Dann's oddball legal strategy. So much for his claim to look after the interests of the children.
In Todd's case, he is using the courts to drag education into the middle of a political campaign, although he claims his move is not partisan. "This is an economic issue about the future of our children in Columbus," he said in a press release. Using legal logic taken from the decade-long DeRolph school-funding litigation, Todd's lawsuit claims that inequitable intra-district spending in Columbus is unconstitutional.
He may be correct about the inherent unfairness of how resources are allocated across schools in Columbus, but seeking to resolve this disparity through the courts as part of his election strategy is a cynical, indeed theatrical, approach for a Republican. Since the DeRolph case was filed 12 years ago, a long line of GOP leaders filed innumerable amicus briefs fighting that lawsuit. Their main contention was, and remains, that school-funding issues are best resolved by the legislature, not the courts. In fact, there is strong evidence emerging that courts do indeed make a hash of school-funding decisions because it is well beyond the bounds of their professional competence (see Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges' Good Intentions and Harm Our Children here). In recognition of this, courts in recent years have ruled in Oklahoma, Indiana, Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon, and Kentucky that K-12 education funding is a political question for the legislature and not the courts (see here).
Candidate Todd's strategy likely has more to do with his low standing in the polls than his conviction that the courts are going to solve inequitable school funding in Columbus for the benefit of children. These political shenanigans would be entertaining if it weren't for the fact that the education of children is on the line. There is no doubt that far too many children in Ohio's big cities are being failed by their education. Without a doubt, there are failed and failing charter schools and district schools in these cities that need to be closed. And there is no doubt that district funding results in some of the neediest children being educated by the greenest and poorest-paid teachers. These problems are real but the approaches being taken by Messrs. Dann and Todd are about political gamesmanship and serving the interests of adults. Meanwhile, students are toiling in failing schools and the bipartisan leadership and collaboration needed to address these chronic problems appear as illusory as ever.
By Terry Ryan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones but guns can definitely kill me
In Cleveland, last week we were reminded, horrifically--again--that schools can be very scary places. A 14-year-old gunman, also known as a student, opened fire in a downtown alternative high school, injuring two students and two adults, before shooting and killing himself (see here). The shooting occurred at SuccessTech Academy.
While they grab national headlines, as absolutely horrible as they are, school shootings are, at best, rare in the nation's 119,000 schools. Violent crime in schools dropped by half between 1994 and 2003, according to the University of Virginia (see here). Homicides, which peaked in the early 1990s at more than 40 a year in schools, dropped sharply by 2002.
Federal statistics indicate that, in a recent year, an estimated 6.5 percent of all students carried a weapon to school. A Columbus Public Schools official told The Gadfly that a dozen guns (six loaded) were taken from students in the last year, down from 27 (16 loaded) in the 2005-2006 school year. Statewide, 451 guns and more than 3,000 other weapons were taken from students in Ohio public schools last year, according to the Ohio Department of Education.
The real problem is fighting. The
Ohio Department of Education reported 78,296 fights and other acts of violence
in the last school year. Charter schools, however, are calmer and safer. According
to a report issued earlier this year, charter schools experience far fewer discipline
problems than district public schools (see here).
Bullying (13,861 times in Ohio schools last year) also is now one of the most-reported
school-violence problems. The Ohio General Assembly recognized the bullying
problem earlier this year, when it authorized public schools to form bullying
prevention task forces and extra training for teachers, parents, school volunteers,
and others.
Constant bullying or an otherwise silly juvenile disagreement can spin out of
control when fueled by fear, anger, and/or raging hormones. The Cleveland incident
was apparently precipitated by a fight earlier in the week and this, as well
as the disturbing national data on fights and bullying, ought to have school
officials taking a new look at violence-prevention programs.
Unfortunately, federal money for violence-prevention programs has been dropping. In Ohio, the federal allocation for safe and drug-free schools has slipped from about $15 million in 2001, according to a state education department official, to $9.9 million this year. The decline comes as two new studies published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine say the programs work. Researchers report that after-school prevention programs result in a substantial reduction in violent behavior across the age and socioeconomic spectrum.
A survey of 53 studies of violence-prevention programs focusing on problem solving, conflict resolution, peer mediation, and other ideas found they resulted in a 15 percent reduction in violent behavior for an average of six months after the program was completed. The research, summarized in Science News, was reinforced by a second, larger study (see here) conducted by scientists at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. This analysis of 249 studies of school-violence-prevention programs found even greater drops in violence. The researchers also noted students going through the programs were AWOL from school less often. Combined with other ideas, violence-prevention programs could help produce even larger results and they might keep the lid on a disagreement that could spark a future school shooting spree.
Thorough and efficient...and unfair?
A lot has been written about the fiscal impact of charter schools on traditional districts (see here, here, and here--just to name a few). Sometimes the information is accurate; almost always it is biased based on who's presenting it. Ohio's school-funding formula is complex, and the funding math gets even fuzzier when it comes to how the state funds charter schools. Advocates on both sides of the charter-school funding debate are guilty of glossing over the minutiae. But the truth is that students in charter schools in the Buckeye State are short-changed in education funding compared to their peers in district schools.
Charter schools are public schools serving public school children (the General Assembly said so and the Ohio Supreme Court agreed). But charter schools are only guaranteed the state base amount of funding and are unable to levy any additional local dollars as school districts. Nor do they have access to state school facilities dollars. Consequently, they must operate with substantially less public funding than district schools. This funding disparity is clear when you compare school spending.
Consider two similar high schools in central Ohio. Fort Hayes Arts and Academic High School, a Columbus city school, served 563 students last school year--69.6 percent of students were black, 73.1 percent economically disadvantaged, and 7.7 percent had disabilities. A central Ohio charter high school, Arts and College Preparatory Academy, served 195 students: 50.5 percent black, 50.9 percent economically disadvantaged, and 14.2 percent with disabilities. Both schools were rated effective by the state. Fort Hayes' performance index score was 95.6; Arts and College Prep's was 90.3. But, last school year, Fort Hayes spent $11,337 per pupil and Arts and College Prep spent just $7,108.
Similar disparities exist in the Gem City. Jefferson Montessori I Elementary School served 471 students--96 percent were black, 99.9 percent economically disadvantaged, and 14.1 percent with disabilities. At the Dayton Academy charter school, 99.7 percent of the 752 students were black, while 42.2 percent were economically disadvantaged and 11.9 percent had disabilities. The Dayton Academy was rated on academic watch by the state and achieved a performance index score of 75.8. Jefferson Montessori I, a district school, was rated in academic emergency and had a performance index score of 67.8. But the Dayton Academy spent $7,721 per student while Jefferson Montessori I spent $11,435. (Disclosure: the Fordham Institute's sister organization, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, is the charter-school authorizer for the Dayton Academy.)
These funding disparities are the norm, not the exception. They exist regardless of student demographics and are present in schools at all levels of achievement.
There are 78,000+ students in Ohio who aren't getting their fair share of education funding simply because of the type of public school they have chosen to attend. For those who argue about educational equity this is an issue that deserves to be addressed.
By Emmy L. Partin, Kristina Phillips-Schwartz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media attention of the Fordham Institute and Northwest Evaluation Association's new report, The Proficiency Illusion, had politicians lecturing and education officials in Washington, D.C. and state capitals wringing their hands and circling the wagons earlier this month. The report, released October 4, criticized the way states measure what our children need to learn in school and highlighted the potpourri of standards for proficiency on state achievement exams.
The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and other dailies paid attention (see here and here), as did many Ohio newspapers (see here and here). But the best line may have come from the Journal Times in Wisconsin: "It used to be that even if Wisconsin students didn't score well, parents and people concerned about education could comfort themselves with the notion that at least Wisconsin's performance was above the national average, that even our poorest students were still pretty good.
"That's apparently not the case. Like some twisted version of Garrison Keillor's mythical Lake Woebegone, we have created a Wisconsin where the women may be strong and the men good-looking but all the children are below average."
State education officials in Ohio and elsewhere immediately went on the defensive. These bureaucrats have to navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis of No Child Left Behind--they are tasked with setting high academic standards and are subject to the fallout when those standards aren't met. In Ohio, officials attempted to undermine the report's methodology rather than use it as an impetus for a real conversation about improving the measurement of academic performance.
At the state board of education meeting the week after the report's release, officials discounted the Fordham report and instead highlighted a June report by the U.S. Department of Education that mapped state proficiency standards in reading and math onto the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scale. Ohio fared slightly better in that analysis but by no means earned bragging rights when it comes to the rigor of our assessments--Fordham's report ranked Ohio near the bottom of the 26 states surveyed while the feds put Ohio in the middle of a 32-state group.
At the same meeting, education department staff presented data about student performance on the Ohio Achievement Test and the NAEP. They were careful to keep results from the two tests on separate slides, likely because the state's passing rates on its own assessments are vastly higher than on the NAEP. Ohio policymakers should have heeded the advice of the federal education department, which, after the release of The Proficiency Illusion called on states to post their scores side-by-side with the NAEP to "paint an accurate picture for parents and the public as to how students are achieving."
In Ohio, that picture would show that while an impressive 80 percent of fourth graders passed the state's reading test last year, only 36 percent passed the NAEP. In fourth-grade math, 76 percent of students passed the Ohio test and only 46 percent passed the NAEP. Ohio's students are making progress, as evidenced by both state and national assessments. But the state's definition of "proficient" is certainly inflated when compared to the "gold standard" NAEP. Parents, educators, and policymakers in the Buckeye State deserve to know this.
Taken together, this information ought to stimulate Ohio education officials and politicians to go beyond talking about the knowledge and skills our children really need and how to attain them. The Achieve recommendations (see here) are a good start, calling for identifying real college- and work-readiness standards for graduation and mapping standards backwards through the lower grades--and setting proficiency cut scores at a level that means something.
There is indication that the General Assembly has the resolve to move this work forward. Last week, Senate education committee members asked tough, thoughtful questions of State Superintendent Susan Tave Zelman about the Achieve report. Democrats and Republicans made it clear that they want to be part of developing the legislative recommendations that come out of this report. Let's hope the State Board of Education keeps pushing the Achieve agenda and that lawmakers join them to improve the state's accountability system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati schools have tough choices but big opportunities
The Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) is at a critical juncture. There's a levy on the ballot in November and three school board seats to be filled. The district also is searching for a new superintendent. The tough decisions on tap will have an enormous impact in a district where 43 percent of students attend schools rated in academic watch or academic emergency, despite significant academic progress.
A recent--and top-notch--report conducted by McKinsey & Company offered a number of useful and necessary suggestions for improving governance and central administration at CPS, including building a new performance management system that deepens accountability, reinforcing financial oversight to enable effective deployment of resources, and focusing more on policy setting and strategic planning. Work is underway in the district to implement the long list of suggested changes (see here).
As the board shifts its attention to policy and strategic planning, board members ought to consider some innovative ideas that would encourage real and systemic change as the new superintendent and board tackle the difficult task of creating the district anew.
First, poorly performing schools should be shuttered. It makes no sense to have children languishing in failing schools year after year. Currently, there are 34 district schools on the bottom two rungs of the state's ratings ladder. The district should implement a strategy of replacing nonfunctioning schools by replicating good ones. Cincinnati need only to look to the Chicago Public Schools' Renaissance 2010 where the poorest-performing schools are being pruned and replaced with 100 great, new schools.
There are great public schools in Cincinnati that can serve as templates, schools that are proving that children from low-income neighborhoods with diverse populations can achieve at very high levels. Three CPS schools and two city charter schools were recently awarded the "Schools of Promise" designation by the Ohio Department of Education for outstanding academic performance during the 2006-2007 school year (see here). Sadly, the highest-performing schools, such as the Cincinnati College Preparatory Academy and the Clark Montessori School, have wait lists and lotteries to get in. Why not target energy and resources toward replicating these high-performing and highly demanded schools?
Second, one-size-fits-all education just doesn't work anymore and Cincinnati should consider creating a more diverse portfolio of schools to serve varying student needs. Districts like New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia all offer diverse options to parents, including traditional and charter schools as well as schools run by universities and nonprofits. Cincinnati already offers a number of excellent magnet schools but it's not enough. The district needs to scour the country and recruit the best school developers, charter-school networks, nonprofit partners, and technical assistance providers to open new schools or to transform existing schools. Columbus already is doing this by recruiting the highly successful KIPP model of schools (see here). The first Ohio KIPP school will open in Columbus in July 2008.
Finally, CPS should better align incentives and rewards with student performance. This means providing better support to struggling teachers and letting them go if they are not helping kids learn. Further, the district ought to develop a more robust career ladder and the best teachers should be identified and paid the most--moves that would keep teachers in the classroom rather than forcing them to move to administrative jobs to earn more money. Administrators should be creative in recruiting teachers. Partnerships with universities, businesses, and nonprofit organizations such as Teach for America and the New Teacher Project can help build a talent pipeline to Cincinnati. The very best teachers from across the country should be recruited and the best teachers already in the district should be supported and valued highly.
Great teachers and good schools make a huge difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Education Gadfly is published bi-weekly (ordinarily on Wednesdays, with occasional breaks) by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Have something to say? Email us at [email protected]. Would you like to be spared from the Gadfly? Email [email protected] with "unsubscribe gadfly" in the text of your message. You are welcome to forward the hio Gadfly to others, and from our website you can even email individual articles. If you have been forwarded a copy of Gadfly and would like to subscribe, you may either email [email protected] with "subscribe gadfly" in the text of the message or sign up through our website. To read archived issues or obtain other reviews of reports and books, go to our website and click on the Ohio Education Gadfly link. Aching for still more education news and analysis? Check out the original Education Gadfly.
Nationally and in Ohio, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, along with its sister organization the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, strives to close America's vexing achievement gaps by raising standards, strengthening accountability, and expanding high-quality education options for parents and families. As a charter-school sponsor in Ohio, the Foundation joins with schools to affirm a relentless commitment to high expectations for all children, accountability for academic results and transparency and organizational integrity, while freeing the schools to operate with minimal red tape. The Foundation and Institute are neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.