THE
OHIO EDUCATION GADFLY
A Bi-Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Volume 2, Number 8. April 9, 2008
Current
Issue On the Web
Past
Issues On the Web
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At $17 billion and counting we can't afford to waste it
In producing the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's report Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy, and Portability to Ohio School Finance (see here), we knew that critics would attack it as William Phillis did in a March 29 letter to The Columbus Dispatch. What we reported collides with the rhetoric and political arguments of interest groups like Phillis' Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding. They have been clamoring for more money for so long that they can't even see when they've won.
Fund the Child shows that Ohio has made serious progress in closing the funding gap between low- and high-poverty districts. In fact, in a 2008 report, the Education Trust cites Ohio as one of just 10 states that have successfully narrowed the gap. In 2000, Education Week gave Ohio a D+ for school-funding equity; in 2008 the state earned a B-.
These findings collide with the tired arguments of folks like Phillis, who have been calling for more state spending on public education for more than a decade, and they've gotten it. Using inflation-adjusted dollars, in 1997 Ohio's taxpayers invested $13.4 billion in K-12 education and by 2007 this had increased to $16.8 billion--some $1,930 for every adult living in the state. In this same period, per-pupil expenditures, again using inflation-adjusted dollars, increased 25 percent (from $7,500 to about $10,000).
Yet, there seems to be no amount that is enough for Phillis. In March 1997, Phillis told The Columbus Dispatch that he was unhappy with the Ohio House of Representative's proposed $949 million increase for primary and secondary education, a more than 12 percent boost in spending from the previous biennium. When he and his colleagues were asked by lawmakers in September 1996 what it takes to adequately educate a child their answer was "it is continually changing." How is that for helpful guidance to concerned lawmakers?
Fund the Child argues that the debate in Ohio and across the country needs to move to closing the gap between schools within districts. This is a position advocated by three former U.S. secretaries of education, a former secretary of the treasury, a former chief of staff to President Clinton, and two former governors. These leaders, among many others, call for "a new method of funding our public schools--one that finally ensures the students who need the most receive it, that empowers school leaders to make key decisions, and that opens the door to public school choice" (see here).
Yes, as Phillis notes, public charter schools that serve the poorest and neediest children would benefit under the proposals in Fund the Child as these public schools currently receive about 70 percent of the funding that district schools receive. But, traditional district schools serving the poorest and neediest children would also benefit by having the money attached to the needs of children as opposed to teaching positions and programs. Isn't this what Phillis wants? He said in 1997, "Ohio's impoverished public schools need legislative action, not legislative neglect." The proposals in Fund the Child would, if enacted, help the state's most impoverished public schools and the children in them.
Does anyone else see the irony in Bill Phillis' criticism?
By Terry Ryan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your popcorn, it's melodrama time
Ohio's tormented charter school scene periodically makes for compelling political drama. Lawsuits seek to break new legal ground, novel appeals sail toward the Internal Revenue Service, baffling legislation is enacted, and important characters engage in the charter debate--including politicians, big-money industrialists, union leaders, philanthropists, and editorial commentators. Ohio is a regular topic of discussion at national charter conferences and Ohio charter stories regularly appear in places like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Consider these recent examples:
Ohio's novel lawsuits not only threaten charters across the land, but non-profit organizations generally. Attorney General Marc Dann is using the state's charitable trust laws to sue a handful of low-performing schools for violating their "charitable" mission as 501(c)3 organizations. If successful, this novel theory of trust law, concocted by lawyers at the Ohio Education Association, would effectively turn the state attorney general into a charter-school prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Under Dann's legal theory, his office would determine whether a school is successful or not, thereby usurping the regulatory authority of the General Assembly, the Ohio Department of Education, and individual charter school sponsors. If the AG gets this authority, observers wonder what would prevent him from determining that non-profit colleges and universities aren't up to snuff and should be closed? Or hospitals? Or any other nonprofit unloved by Dann's political supporters? And why not then in other states, too?
The IRS is being invited to investigate Ohio's largest for-profit charter operator. If the revenuers can bring down Al Capone why not Ohio's most prominent for-profit charter operator? The Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT) (see here) recently pleaded with the IRS to investigate David Brennan's White Hat Management, Inc. and the 31 charter schools that it operates in Ohio. The union questions whether charters managed by White Hat are truly overseen by independent governing authorities. Under state law, non-profit charter boards are tasked with governing and overseeing the management of the schools. In some cases, they outsource day-to-day operations to firms like White Hat, but the governing authority--not the operator--is ultimately accountable for the school's success. In its letter to the IRS, the union contends that White Hat really runs the show at these schools and that the board members actually work for the operator. This has been a long-running fight between the OFT and White Hat, and now the IRS is being asked to settle it.
Political action committees fined a record $5.2 million. Adding money to the melodrama, the Ohio Elections Commission fined the political action committee All Children Matter $2.6 million for illegally funneling money to Republican candidates in 2006. The commission also fined the All Children Matter Virginia PAC $2.6 million (see here). The amounts levied by the bi-partisan commission certainly turned some heads around the Statehouse. The commission found All Children Matter, a Michigan-based group, illegally funneled $870,000 in campaign contributions through its Virginia political-action committee to its PAC in Ohio. All Children Matter plans to appeal.
Portions of Ohio's tangled charter laws baffle even the most ardent charter supporter. The theory is straightforward--and scrupulously honored in most other states: non-profit governing authorities are accountable for school governance and management. They may outsource daily operations to non-profit or for-profit organizations; they remain the schools' "master," responsible for ensuring academic performance and fiscal probity and answerable to the school's sponsor.
Ohio, however, has introduced its own bizarre wrinkles. State law (see here) makes it legal for an operator, with the sign-off of its sponsor, to fire the governing authority and replace it with all-new board members of its own choosing. As a result, the operator, for-profit or otherwise, not only runs the school, but governs it as well. In effect, it contracts with itself for the outsourcing. Of the 40 states (and D.C.) that allow charter schools, Ohio is unique in allowing school operators to fire and then appoint new governing boards--an astounding case of the fox guarding the hens and a mighty hard situation to explain even to charter friends, much less to skeptics and critics.
Amid all the shenanigans, however, there's also good news. Real improvements are taking place in Ohio's charter sector. The state's first KIPP school (see here) is opening in Columbus in August and more are expected to follow. A growing number of Ohio charters are establishing strong academic records (Citizens' Academy, Cleveland's E-Prep, Ohio Virtual Academy, Horizon Science Academies, the Graham School, and Old Brooklyn Montessori to name but six), and they are steadily expanding their enrollments. The Cleveland Metropolitan School District seems serious about opening new charter schools through the district's Office of New and Innovative Schools (see here), and other districts are quietly looking into ways by which they, too, might gingerly embrace the charter concept. And troubled charter schools are starting to close. The bright stops aren't always easy to see, but they're there and any true appraisal of Ohio's charter scene needs to attend to the good as well as the bad.
By Terry Ryan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K-12 could learn from Fingerhut's higher-ed plan
Last week, Chancellor Eric Fingerhut released his 10-year strategic plan for Ohio's colleges and universities (see here). Over the next decade, Ohio will seek to transform its higher- education institutions to boost educational attainment across the board. As Governor Ted Strickland develops his own K-12 education reform package, due out this time next year, there are at least five themes from Fingerhut's plan worth carrying over to primary and secondary education:
Accountability is the path to change. A higher-education accountability system will measure how individual institutions and the state progress. As institutions show progress, the state will ramp up its investment in those institutions. K-12 education also benefits from both transparency and accountability for results.
Institutions must embrace both cooperation and competition. Competition among universities and from private and out-of-state colleges has not spurred excellence. Fingerhut's strategy will push colleges and universities to work together on accomplishing a single set of statewide goals. Certainly, schools will still vie for the best and brightest students, but now enrolling more students than the next university will no longer be a primary indicator of success or the sole driver of state funds. Academic results matter now, too.
Students deserve choice in educational options. No two students are the same and no one university or college can be everything for every student. Universities should focus on their core missions and strengths in order to bolster their strongest programs. Students in Ohio should be able to choose from an array of high-quality options that meet their unique educational needs.
Funding should align with priorities and success. Dollars will be used to reward excellence. Innovative academic programs will be supported and encouraged and incentives offered for schools to collaborate, operate more efficiently, and meet the demands of their students and employers.
The system must be flexible. Ohio's colleges and universities have long histories and rich traditions, but they must keep an eye toward the future by responding quickly to changing circumstances and changing what doesn't work.
Two years ago, the Great Lakes states' affiliates of the National Education Association launched the Think Twice project to "review think tank research on public education issues and policies" (see here). The Thomas B. Fordham Institute is on the short list of organizations they are keeping an eye on (see here), thus our recent report, Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy, and Portability to Ohio School Finance received a review.
Bruce Baker of the University of Kansas provides a decent analysis of our report (see here), yet a few of his points deserve clarification:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal ball: fewer Midwest high school grads by 2021
If demographics are truly destiny then policymakers in the Midwest should take serious heed of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education's (WICHE) latest edition of Knocking at the College Door. The publication released last month analyzes recorded data and studies trends to forecast the numbers of high school graduates for the country, its major geographic regions, and individual states through the 2021-2022 school year.
One of the report's major predications is that the national "baby boom echo" will fade after 2007-2008, when graduates will peak at around 3.4 million. The number eventually will increase, with total graduates exceeding the current year's high by 2020-2021. The same does not hold true here in the Midwest, however, where the total will follow the national trend down and then continue to fall by 6.7 percent in the following years. Ohio's numbers are slated to max out next year at 124,275 before trending downward through 2014-2015 when 11,000 fewer students will graduate from high school.
WICHE also anticipates shifts in the racial and ethic makeup of graduating students across the country. As predicted, the 2018-2019 school year will be the first time that the nation's public high schools will have a majority of graduates from racial or ethnic minorities. This will come as a result of a decrease in the number of graduating white students and a substantial increase in the number of Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islanders. In the coming decade, Ohio alone will see the number of Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander graduates increase by 81.3 and 34 percent respectively.
These findings prompt the question of how Ohio and the rest of the country will respond? It seems to be the right time for change. Populations are shifting and so should the ways in which schools serve them. Indeed, a first step in these reforms will be addressing the inequities of funding to better assist the areas receiving the influx of students. (Fordham's own report on Weighted Student Funding--see here--could provide a possible solution.) But there is no time to waste in moving reforms forward; rapid changes in student population require equally rapid changes in schooling. If only those fortune tellers at WICHE could work magic too. Read the full report here.
By Alex Karas
Science backs teens--staying abed really does help
During puberty, teenagers' daily circadian rhythms are altered and their natural bedtime is shifted to about 11 p.m., according to scientists. This finding, paired with studies that show that teens require at least 8 1/2 hours of sleep per night, suggests that students should not rise until at least 7:30 a.m. This is usually when the first period begins in many American high schools so classrooms are often filled with students too dragged out to learn effectively.
Now, a study from the University of Minnesota has shown that the sleep deficit incurred by tired high-schoolers can lead to memory loss, decreased alertness and creativity, and increased depression. After the Minneapolis Public School District changed its high school start time from 7:15 a.m. to 8:40 a.m., researchers found students were more likely to stay awake in class and be more focused while doing their work (see here). The same has been noted in Ohio, where Dayton's Belmont High School has a start time of 9 a.m. With the teen-friendly start, school counselor Lynne Slaven said students who have more sleep arrive in the morning alert and with better attitudes.
According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, many schools are reluctant to make such changes to their schedules because it conflicts with the work schedules of parents and guardians. Also, later start times mean students wouldn't get home until the late afternoon or early evening, posing a conflict for after-school jobs and extracurricular activities. Ultimately Gadfly, from personal experience, figures that students will be better off if they get more sleep in their beds instead of at their desks.
By Alex Karas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chad L. Aldis, executive director of School Choice Ohio, took exception to a recent Columbus Dispatch letter to the editor from William Phillis of the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding.
Mr. Phillis...takes issue with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's Fund the Child report, a document that seems like common sense to most Ohioans, except maybe the education establishment.
Mr. Phillis agrees with the Ohio Supreme Court that Ohio's school funding needs a "systematic overhaul." However, in his view a significant part of any solution is more money. This "blank check" approach, which can hardly be considered reform, will not increase equality without changes in how school districts distribute their resources among schools.
The Fordham Institute, praised by The Dispatch editorial board for offering a "fresh idea," presents a systematic overhaul in which all schools, no matter where they are, are funded according to their students' needs.
Mr. Phillis suggests that the Fordham Institute stands to benefit from their study. The truth is that Fordham and other innovative partnerships like those that support KIPP Academies and the Gates Foundation investment in STEM schools only benefit over time if they perform well. In the end, performance can be the only true measure of success for our schools.
School choice is growing rapidly because parents want more high quality options. Everyone knows that some children are excluded from these opportunities based solely on the income of their parents. That's what the Fordham Institute proposes to fix.
While our political freedom and free market economy may, as Mr. Phillis notes, be the envy of the world, our country's students continue to lag behind students in other industrialized countries like Finland, Canada, and South Korea. And this despite these countries spending much less per pupil on education than we do. If more money were the only answer, we would already be near the top in rankings. For Ohioans to compete in the global economy, new ways of thinking and complex problem solving for issues such as school funding must lead the way.
If you have something to say about The Ohio Education Gadfly, say it in an e-mail to an article author or to the editor, Mike Lafferty, at [email protected]. Correspondence may be edited for clarity and length.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.