THE
OHIO EDUCATION GADFLY
A Bi-Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Volume 2, Number 9. April 23, 2008
Current
Issue On the Web
Past
Issues On the Web
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School size and the Goldilocks phenomenon
Like Goldilocks' search for the perfect size chair in the classic children's fable, educators have long sought the perfect school size. Some have pushed for very small schools. KnowledgeWorks Foundation, for example, urged in its 2002 report Dollars and Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools the creation of public high schools with 200 students and elementary schools enrolling 100 students (here). The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation famously invested millions to start small new high schools and break large ones into smaller units. Results, however, have been mixed, allowing critics of small size to remain unconvinced. Fordham board member Diane Ravitch has long noted the limitations of smaller schools and the impact of scale on their range of academic offerings. Her critiques are well worth considering, here, here, and here.
Though nobody can say what the optimal size for a school should be, many small-school boosters recommend elementary schools of 300-400 students and high schools serving somewhere between 400 and 800 students (here).
One of the selling points for charter schools is that, by being smaller than traditional district schools, they provide both a safer and more nurturing environment for students. Nationally, the average charter school enrolls about 560 students while the traditional district school has about 900. Studies indicate that teachers and principals in charters report fewer safety problems (here) and many good charters have the feel of a "community" or "family." Achieving such environments is undeniably easier when schools (or units within a school) are of a size where "everyone knows your name."
But school-size data from Ohio pose the question of whether charter schools can be too small. More than half of Ohio's 314 charters serve fewer than 150 children and 75 percent serve fewer than 300. The Buckeye State is also home to a handful of enormous charters (many of them "virtual" schools), meaning that nearly half of all state charter outlays go to the 40 largest schools, while 154 charters have operating budgets of less than $1 million a year.
Viewed from a financial perspective, size indisputably matters. The Ohio School Facilities Commission will fund no buildings for traditional school districts that enroll fewer than 350 pupils. Moody's Investors Service observes that effectively funding charter school facilities requires at least 300-500 students, which it termed "an important threshold, because below this figure, the loss of even a few students can negatively impact debt-service coverage."
Ohio's charters receive no public funding for facilities, hence they must cover their facility costs from their basic state aid, which averages about $7,000 per pupil. Little schools with budgets of a million or less face significant challenges using these dollars to pay for an acceptable building while also establishing an effective education program: paying for decent teachers, school leadership, professional development, curriculum, books, technology, food service, and other needs. In short, small charter schools face huge budgetary challenges. They have little margin for error and seemingly minor losses of enrollment or increases in their operating costs (e.g., health insurance, heating oil) may take dollars from academics.
Academic achievement results from 2006-2007 show that Ohio's smaller charter schools performed worse than larger ones. Two-thirds of those serving 100 or fewer children were rated Academic Emergency or Academic Watch. By contrast, less than half the schools larger than 100 pupils fell into those lowest rating categories.
Is it that the small charters are new and haven't yet had time to grow? Apparently not. When one examines only schools that have been open for at least five years, the same unhappy picture emerges: fully 64 percent of charters with enrollments of 150 or less were rated Academic Emergency or Academic Watch. (This excludes "drop-out recovery" schools.) By contrast, 43 percent of charter schools with enrollments of 151-300 students landed in those categories, as did 44 percent of those with more than 300 students. The largest schools are least likely to have abysmal performance. Only 8 percent of schools with enrollments greater than 300 were rated Academic Emergency in 2006-2007.
Many factors contribute to the success or failure of a school. Size is just one and not necessarily the most important. Unlike Goldilocks' need for a chair that's "just right," there is probably no optimal school size. It's our sense though, in the state of Ohio, for long-term sustainability and academic success, a charter school seems to have better odds if it enrolls at least 300 students.
Yes, there are happy exceptions, superb little schools and others that make it despite their smallness because philanthropy augments the state dollars. Broadly speaking, though, small-school aficionados and charter proponents alike should heed the data and recognize that, unless a school is mighty special, being really small brings more grief than gain.
By Terry Ryan and Eric Osberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the House of Representatives and State Board of Education took a look this month at Ohio's obscure and antiquated mechanisms for financing the education of students who have difficulty speaking and writing English.
The House education committee held a special hearing last week about the financial challenges of educating these children, who are dubbed under state and federal laws as limited English proficient (LEP). The hearing was requested by State Representative Kevin Bacon, of Westerville. Last year, there were more than 28,000 LEP students identified in Ohio, up from about 9,000 students just 10 years ago. By law, schools must provide a full academic program to LEP students along with additional assistance to help them learn English. Most schools provide these services with little extra funding.
Tom Ash, of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, explained the limitations of the two current sources of funding for serving LEP students. Federal Title III dollars are available on a per-pupil basis but this funding amounts to just $206 per student this year. The state provides some dollars for LEP students through its Poverty Based Assistance (PBA) program, but the eligibility parameters preclude most schools from receiving the money.
To receive state LEP funding, a school must first be eligible for PBA and have an English-challenged population equal to at least 2 percent of the student population. However, because the state uses the fiscal year 2003 count of LEP students in making that determination, only 11 districts in Ohio are eligible for the funding while at least 300 districts now serve LEP students.
Westerville City Schools, located in Bacon's district, serves about 1,200 LEP students who speak 82 different languages, according to district LEP coordinator Bev Good. The district is not eligible for state LEP funds and must tap other sources to finance the screening center, resource rooms, and tutoring programs it uses to help children learn English.
State funding is further limited because it is phased in at 70 percent, with no statutory mandate for an increase, and is funded on a sliding scale. Ash suggested lawmakers add a funding weight for LEP students, as is done in New Mexico, and consider a limit on how long a child could receive the funding.
Earlier this month the State Board of Education's school-funding subcommittee discussed weighting funds for different student characteristics, including limited English proficiency, and also heard about the limitations and problems with current LEP funding. While the subcommittee has not yet made recommendations, Ohio Department of Education staffers have put forth ideas for the group to consider. Among them: weight LEP status the same as the category one special education weight, identify LEP students for funding the same way they are identified for the local report card, limit how long a student may receive state LEP funding, and apply the state share percentage to the weight.
Bacon hopes the legislature will address LEP funding in the next state budget. The state board's school-funding recommendations are expected this summer after the group's June retreat. Gadfly would like to remind readers to visit our recent report Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy, and Portability to Ohio School Finance as it lays out a framework that would help address the challenges of getting funding to the children who need, including those learning English (here).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your count, my count, how much do the kids count?
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is on the hook for a potential payout of tens of millions of dollars to school districts whose students opted to attend charter schools unless the Ohio Supreme Court rules on behalf of the state. The State Board of Education has until May 12 to appeal to the high court the question of whether the Cincinnati Public Schools or the charter schools within its borders should report how many students are enrolled in those charter schools.
Big bucks ride on the answer. While, Cincinnati stands to gain an extra $4.6 million (here), if the decision of lower courts stands, the department could be liable for an extra $50 million statewide. In Dayton schools could be looking at a $14 million state check, maybe more (here).
A spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann said no decision on an appeal has been made.
Cincinnati Public Schools sued the state board when ODE started using charter-school numbers instead of district numbers to tote up the amount of money the district should receive. When a child transfers from a Cincinnati district school to a charter, his or her state funds follow to the charter school. Cincinnati district officials contend there were fewer students in charter schools than the charters were reporting and that the district was short-changed. The suit covers counts made from 2005 to 2007.
Lower courts (most recently on March 28) ruled in favor of Cincinnati Public Schools, agreeing that the law doesn't allow the state to base per-pupil payments on figures that come from charter schools. The state, however, argues a change in state law last year allows it to use numbers provided directly by charter schools. Because districts receive state funds based on the number of students they serve, an accurate count in both traditional district schools and public charter schools is vital. Should the department lose its appeal to the Supreme Court, it's unclear where it would come up with $50 million because it already has had to slash as much as $100 million from its spending to help balance the state budget. If the department loses, there is the possibility it could go after some charter schools for the money.
This is all quite fascinating in light of Dann's discussion April 16 in Columbus with the Federalist Society about potential conflicts of interest because of the attorney general's role as counsel for all state agencies (which he played off as inter-office competition that benefits the greater good), not to mention the move by his office against charters based on the charitable trust law. Specifically, he's suing charter schools, yet he is the ultimate decision-maker on whether to appeal a potential $50 million dollar judgment against them.
By Mike Lafferty and Kathryn Mullen Upton
Cornhuskers finally see the light
Nebraska's governor this month signed into law a bill requiring the state to begin administering statewide, uniform assessments to measure students' academic progress. Nebraska's current system (STARS--School-based, Teacher-led Assessment and Reporting System) allows each of the state's 500-plus districts to design its own local assessments; which can include a portfolio of teacher classroom assessments, district tests, a state writing test, and a nationally standardized test. (See Gadfly's earlier report on STARS here.) Last summer, the legislature approved adding statewide standardized tests in reading and math but many lawmakers were unhappy with the state education department's attempt to merge those tests with the local assessments.
Under the new legislation, schools
may still retain local assessments as an additional lens through which to monitor
academic progress but the local assessments won't be valid for state and federal
accountability requirements. Supporters of the change say that teachers will
no longer be burdened by the complex upward reporting required of STARS. Critics
are concerned that statewide assessment will force schools to narrow the curriculum
and focus only on those areas tested.
The strongest advocate of Nebraska's local assessments has been the state's
education commissioner, Douglas D. Christensen, who said in Education Week
of the move to statewide testing, "I see nothing positive in terms of good
public policy or good education policy in state testing" (here).
A few days before the legislation passed, Christensen announced his resignation
effective this summer.
Another vocal supporter of STARS is George Wood, principal of Federal Hocking Middle and High School in Amesville, Ohio, and executive director of the Forum for Education and Democracy. Wood authored Governor Ted Strickland's K-12 education transition report. In it he suggested Ohio rethink "assessment tools so that they are more comprehensive and not as reliant upon a single test, high stakes, and standardized measures" (here). He said "the possibility for this work has been opened up by the U.S. Department of Education's approval of Nebraska's assessment system which does not rely on a single, statewide test."
In truth, however, Nebraska's STARS was never deemed compliant with federal accountability requirements (here).
Two factors appear key to Nebraska's decision to adopt statewide testing. First, a common, statewide assessment will increase accountability as school performance can be compared across the state. Second, and more important, uniform tests will help shed light on achievement gaps and underserved student populations as Nebraska's demographics change and educators work to raise lagging achievement of poor and minority students.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the State of No Brainers, there are few new ideas, save one
State leaders have not taken education reform seriously enough, nor have they moved fast enough to implement change, although one improvement they should definitely consider is modernizing the way students are funded, argues a new briefing paper from The Ohio Grantmakers Forum (here).
The forum sponsored a series of regional meetings last year to examine education needs. Many participants agreed with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute that the idea of weighting student funding is key, at least as the way to allocate the money. The idea is that funding should be targeted for the needs of individual students (whether gifted, poor, or limited English proficient for example) and that the money should follow when the student moves to a new school (here). This is a sea change from the way funds now are allocated. The idea of Weighted Student Funding is gaining momentum among members of the State Board of Education and elsewhere.
The Grantmakers Forum conducted the meetings following its 2006 report Education for Ohio's Future that called for a pre-school-through-college system, quality teachers and principals, accelerated learning innovations, adequate funding tied to results, and the ever-present desire for Ohio to have "world-class" standards.
The regional meetings sought to amplify these worthy goals and examine how the state should make progress in achieving them. That, of course, is where it all begins to get much more difficult. The OGF's report concluded that the meetings produced no clear-cut view of how we get to an education system with "world-class standards," let alone how we get the students to actually meet those standards. "Ohioans are not in agreement on what school reform should look like and the state's highly valued tradition of local control exacerbates the problem," the report argues. We certainly could use fewer school districts in Ohio. How about one for each county--88 rather than 614? Meeting participants had other suggestions, like calling for stronger efforts to close the achievement gap between high- and low-performing students, rigorous academic standards, and improving the way teachers and school leaders are trained and supported.
While money is a recurring issue, according to the report, there was no agreement that just spending more money will actually solve any problems. Nor was there any agreement on where any new money should come from to further boost education spending over the billions the state has added since the first DeRolph decision in 1997.
Actually, there is very little to disagree with in this well-meaning little document but it's also clear that the effort doesn't do much to advance the debate. As well-intentioned as everyone always is when it comes to their schools, it's still unclear whether Ohioans will ever attain consensus on education.
Tennessee district has lessons to teach
School principals and administrators take note: the Education Sector's newest report, The Benwood Plan: A Lesson in Comprehensive Teacher Reform, shows readers how drastic improvements can be made with just a little bit of elbow grease and creative school-based reforms. Penned by Elena Silva, the report, released earlier this month, tells of the rigorous measures that boosted teacher support and transformed the schools of Tennessee's Hamilton County.
In 1999, when eight of his schools made the state's 20-worst list, Superintendent Jesse Register knew that it was high-time to make some dramatic changes to revolutionize his struggling urban schools. Choosing to forego a traditional campaign that would attract fresh talent to the district, he opted to strengthen the teachers he already had.
But first, knowing that he needed to weed out the dead weight, Register decided to force all 300 of his teachers to reapply for their jobs for the 2002-2003 school year. Although this was a controversial move, the district ended up rehiring a large majority of its teachers, assuring Register that he had a competent team committed to change.
He made reforms in the following school year by increasing teacher support with new mentoring programs and by hiring additional staff to provide extra help in the classroom. Also, he instituted a merit-pay system and beefed-up professional development.
Substantial results were seen in the matter of a few years: the 2004-2005 school year saw an increase in teacher performance when Benwood teachers boasted an "above-average" rating in effectiveness according to Tennessee's value-added assessment scale (note: teachers added after the 2002 rehiring are not included in these results). And predictably, this also translated into student success, with third-grade reading levels increasing from 53 to 80 percent in the span of four years.
Teacher retention rates also improved. The number of new teachers hired in 2006 was half the number in 2002. To Silva, this statistic alone provides clear evidence of the positive impact that a supportive and challenging environment has on teacher morale and motivation.
To read more on how Benwood taught its old teachers new tricks, see here.
By Alex Karas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 either email [email protected] with "subscribe gadfly" in the text of the message or sign up through our website. 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.