THE
OHIO EDUCATION GADFLY
A Bi-Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Volume 2, Number 24. November 5, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama and Ohio's Dems race to victory--now they must get along
It's a cliché, perhaps, but one worth repeating. The real winners in Tuesday's election are the people of Ohio. An incredible number turned out to vote (rivaling the record set in 2004), and a clear majority delivered the state's electoral votes to U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. As Thomas Friedman observed in today's New York Times, this election was not only a complete rejection of President George Bush, but also "a rebellion against a traditional Democratic version of the common good--that is simply the sum of all interest groups clamoring for their share" (see here).
Now, Obama's historic election as president of the United States sets the stage for a clash between Obama's reform-minded idealism and the entrenched interests of his party. Education will be a central front in this struggle, and how it plays out nationally will impact what happens in Ohio.
Specifically, it is easy to contrast Obama, who appears to be an educational free-thinker looking for solutions, with Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and the soon-to-be majority Ohio House Democrats. Up to now, Strickland and his fellow Dems have been joined at the hip with the teacher unions, which have largely "had it up to here" with the Republican education-reform efforts of the last decade. Those efforts, mirroring what has happened in other states, have brought accountability through state standards, statewide testing with high-stakes attached to the results, and value-added measures to gauge progress. Importantly, these reforms have also provided parents and students in urban areas a chance to opt out of broken schools through charter schools and even vouchers. This competition has undeniably triggered district innovations in long-suffering districts like Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton.
There is every reason to think that Obama will want to follow through on the reform education agenda he outlined in a major speech in Dayton during the campaign (see here) where he advocated for more charter school spending and merit pay for teachers. As a politician from a major city (Chicago) in a major industrial state (Illinois), Obama has seen the damage that broken schools can do to a city's poorest and neediest children, many of whom are children of color. He and his wife are a living testament to the power of education to make dreams possible. Obama's early education was a mix of Catholic schooling and home schooling in Indonesia at the knee of his mother. As a pre-teen and teenager he attended an elite Honolulu prep school.
In Chicago, as a community organizer and later as a state lawmaker, he witnessed the efforts of Mayor Daley and superintendents Paul Vallas and Arne Duncan to turnaround Chicago's troubled public schools by embracing standards and accountability, encouraging the growth of a charter-school sector, and empowering individual school leaders to run schools for the interests of their children as opposed to the interests of the adults who worked for the school system.
But, in Illinois, the efforts to expand Chicago's charter school program--an effort supported by the city's Democratic mayor, the city's school superintendent and school board president and the business community--has been repeatedly rejected in the statehouse in Springfield because it is opposed by the state's teacher unions. Any serious Obama reform efforts in Congress also will confront union opposition. The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association spent big money and exerted lots of effort to help get Obama elected and they surely expect some payback for their efforts, or at least not a direct slap to the face. They fought long and hard to help him win Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other industrial states (see here).
The first indication we will have to gauge how reform-minded the Obama administration is actually going to be will be his choice for Secretary of Education. Choosing a reformer like Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, N.J. who has embraced and supported the city's quality charter schools; former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has a passion for education; or Chicago's Arne Duncan would say he is hiring someone likely to pursue a reform agenda focused on the needs of children even if it comes at the ire of established interest groups. On the other hand, selecting a Linda Darling-Hammond, a favorite of the unions, would send a far different message.
In Ohio, Democrats took control
of the Ohio House in no small part on the coattails of President-elect Obama,
as well as the long hours worked by Gov. Strickland crisscrossing the state
on behalf of his party. After wandering in the political desert for the last
14 years, Democrats now have a 53-46 majority in the House. That means, when
the 128th General Assembly gets under way in January, Strickland's attempts
to reform the state's education and school funding systems will have easier
sledding. Will the governor's agenda be a reform-minded one akin to what Obama
has sketched out or pay-back time for the teacher unions and their allies?
We will know the answer to this in early 2009 when the governor puts forth his
biennial budget proposal, which is expected to include his much-anticipated
education reform plan. Appropriations measures originate in the House, and a
friendly chamber is likely to introduce a budget bill that closely mirrors the
governor's proposal. Contrast this scenario with 2007, when Strickland proposed
a budget that would have, among other things, strangled the state's charter
program and killed off the nascent EdChoice voucher program (see here).
The House version of the budget neutered the governor's more radical proposals,
and leaders from both parties worked toward compromises to pass the budget.
With the House likely to rally around the governor's agenda in 2009, the Republican
Senate will serve as the check-and-balance. With a solid 21-12 majority and
seasoned Senate President Bill Harris at the helm, the Senate won't roll over
easily to a Democratic agenda they find offensive; especially if it comes across
as a partisan effort to dismantle many of the education reform efforts put in
place by the Republicans since the mid-1990s.
The State Board of Education will serve as another counterbalance to Gov. Strickland.
Though changes to education policy can be enacted via legislation, the board
has important power over policies and implementation. Nine months ago Strickland
called for diminishing the role of the board and giving more power to a governor-appointed
director of education. He has said nothing more on this front of late, and last
month, when the state board hired Deborah Delisle as the new state superintendent,
Strickland vowed to work with her toward "building a world-class education system
for Ohio." Yesterday's election results may cause him to revisit the need for
an education czar directly answerable to him.
Delisle doesn't work for the governor and her new bosses may not be as closely
aligned with Strickland as he had hoped. Seven state board seats were up for
election this year. Just two of the candidates endorsed by the Ohio Education
Association (see here)
were victorious. Strickland's sole appointee on the board, Akron homemaker Heather
Heslop Licata, lost her seat by a 61 percent to 38 percent margin. Rob Hovis,
who was first appointed to the board by Republican Gov. Bob Taft in 2004 and
whose term ends in December, won a four-year elected seat on the board. Strickland
will get to appoint four members to the education board in December, but, like
the Senate, the 2009 State Board of Education isn't shaping up to be one that
will give carte blanche to the governor should he want to move education in
a totally new and uncharted direction.
So, school reformers in Ohio shouldn't despair. Rigorous academic standards are important, so are school and student assessments; and school-choice programs are vital to give urban parents and students a chance to attend decent schools. If Obama stays true to his campaign pledges, and Ohio's Democratic leaders take heed, there is a real possibility that education in Ohio could move in a positive and bi-partisan direction. This would truly be for the "common good."
School boards must be better stewards of hard-earned urban tax dollars
Passage of all the school levies on the ballot in Dayton, Columbus, Toledo, and Youngstown is a good sign of increasing support for education where it's needed most. The Gadfly knows that school districts don't always spend wisely or frugally but we also know that, in Ohio's largest and most economically depressed urban areas, public schools are getting hammered financially. They need the money. The success of levies in these four cities stands in contrast to the mixed bag of results in the 237 issues statewide.
Results are especially mixed in
the suburbs, where upwardly mobile voters once helped with ballot-box success.
For example, in suburban Columbus, which arguably has faired better economically
than the rest of the state, four of eight levy requests were shot down. It's
also useful to contrast Dayton, where a levy is needed just to keep the district
afloat, and the effort in Columbus, where the money will be used to push the
district forward, in part by hiring more teachers and establishing special college-prep
schools.
Here's a look at the issues voters approved in Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and
Youngstown:
No matter whether new money helps propel a district forward or simply plugs leaks, it's incumbent on city school boards to appreciate that residents have very pressing needs for their money--like food, shelter, and heat. Even the few extra dollars a month that most levies cost are probably already budgeted by families. Now, with the national economy in the tank and city dwellers often in even narrower financial straits, the hard-earned dollars they have now agreed to provide their schools should be respected by district bureaucrats.
Ohio's big city districts cannot continue business as usual, like paying to keep open half-empty school buildings. With roughly 80 percent of a district's budget going to fund personnel, boards must get smarter about who they hire and retain as teachers as well as how much they pay. For example, districts have to be smarter about awarding tenure. Too many teachers are kept on staff even though they shouldn't be in a classroom. In Ohio, districts can let go any teacher for any reason during the first few years, although few districts actually exercise this authority. Too often this reluctance leads to poor teaching and kids suffer. Districts also should look at the private sector for help, especially for non-classroom related jobs. In Columbus, for example, the district has hired a private consultant to help its food service break even and that effort could include privatizing the entire operation.
And, the time is now for school districts to work with decent charter schools that are also working to serve these community's neediest children. For example, the Columbus City Schools can use their new buses to pick up charter students who also need to get to school safely and on time, while Dayton might consider using some of its citizens' tax dollars to offer professional development opportunities to charter teachers as well as their own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Education Gadfly is published bi-weekly (ordinarily on Wednesdays, with occasional breaks, and in special editions) by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Have something to say? Email the editor 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 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 email [email protected] with "subscribe gadfly" in the text of the message. To read archived issues, 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 Institute, along with its sister organization the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 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.