The Education Gadfly

Ohio is bracing for an exodus of baby boomers from classrooms as experts sound alarms about whether there will be enough teachers to staff our public schools.

Nationwide, some 200,000 teaching vacancies are expected annually (see here), the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported last week. Addressing Ohio's specific needs will mean tossing out current teacher-hiring and pay schemes and embracing market realities, especially to fill teaching positions in high-demand subjects.

In 2005, 36 percent of Ohio public school teachers were age 50 or older. Because of incentives in the state's teacher-pension system (see here), this means that more than one-third of the teaching force could retire by 2015. Still, the state is in a little better shape than many others because our colleges already produce more teachers than our schools can hire, although the surplus is mostly primary grade teachers. Future demand also will be tempered by the state's changing demographics. The number of Ohio high-school graduates is expected to peak next school year at about 124,000 and then decline by more than 9 percent over the following six years (see here).

Though Ohio may not see the large increase in overall demand for teachers that high-population-growth states like Florida and Arizona will experience, the Buckeye State does anticipate an increased demand for teachers in math, science, foreign languages, and special education just as experienced teachers are retiring in droves. In Columbus alone, Columbus City Schools Superintendent Gene Harris told the district's school board that implementing Ohio's increased graduation requirements--the Ohio Core--will require hiring 44 science teachers and 23 counselors (see here) beyond replacing the teachers slated to retire.

A lot of people (Gadfly included) have hoped that Teach for America (TFA) could be part of the solution in Ohio. TFA does what even the savviest district human resource offices do not: recruits first-rate graduates from a variety of majors and colleges to teach in their toughest schools. TFA recruits are trained in teaching methods and classroom management before entering the classroom, and they continue their education during their two-year assignment by earning a master's degree in education. And, they're bright. The average SAT score of a TFA recruit is 1321, versus 1017 nationally for college graduates and 1074 for recent graduates of Ohio's schools of education (see here and here).

The fact of the matter is, though, that Ohio doesn't need all of what TFA provides, that is teachers of all grades and subjects, at least not in the quantity TFA requires--TFA places at least 100 teachers per year at each of its sites. So instead, Ohio's educators, business leaders, and philanthropists need to replicate TFA's best features and target recruitment to meet our state's needs, via a "Teach for Ohio" program, perhaps. And if we want to keep the best teachers in the classroom--be they traditional pathway educators or those coming through alternative routes--then we need to make it worth their while. Pay differentials and signing bonuses for high-need subjects and hard-to-staff schools and merit pay for outstanding teachers would go a long way in helping districts compete with private-sector employers for the best and brightest.

Ohio's alternative educator license already supports bringing subject-area experts into the classroom to teach seventh- through twelfth-grade courses. Our college schools of education have the courses and pathways to help alternative educators attain their provisional and continuing licenses; although they don't always use them (see here). Ohio's business community knows how to attract top talent--surely they can translate this skill to attracting top teaching talent. And our philanthropy and state government can put forth the resources needed to make the endeavor work over the long haul.

By Emmy L. Partin

It's time for Dayton district and charter schools to collaborate

There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about Dayton Public Schools during the last year. Seldom does a week pass without a front-page article or an editorial describing the profound challenges facing the district.

With the defeat of last May's levy, the district confronts serious financial problems. The uncertainty and sense of alarm are exacerbated by the void created by the looming departure of popular Superintendent Percy Mack to South Carolina (see here). The district's future is unsettled and things could get worse before they get any better for its 16,000 students.

Less noticed, however, is what's happening with Dayton's charter schools. The lack of attention is surprising, as Dayton's charter schools now serve more than 7,000 students. (If all Dayton charter students were in one school district, it would be Montgomery County's fifth-largest district).

Just as with Dayton Public Schools, Dayton's charter schools serve the area's neediest children, and they are undergoing their own shake-up. For the first time since charter schools opened in 1998, Dayton will have fewer charter schools operating at the start of the new school year than it had at the close of the previous one. At least four small, independently operated charters have closed or will close this year.

The Rhea Academy and the Colin Powell Leadership Academy are already closed, and the Omega School of Excellence and the East End Community School will close in June. One new school is expected to open during the summer, so it looks as if Dayton will go from 34 charter schools operating in August 2007 to 31 in September 2008.

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (see here) has sponsored the Omega School of Excellence and the East End Community School in Dayton. As such, we are working closely with leadership at both schools to ensure their orderly shuttering.

These two school closures, unlike others that have made headlines across the state, were not brought on by malfeasance or incompetence. The closures are largely the result of competition. Both schools had to compete for children--and the state dollars that follow them--against other charter schools, against the Dayton Public Schools, and against private schools receiving state vouchers. Dayton, in fact, is a hot-bed of school choice, and, as the city continues to shrink, these schools are competing for fewer and fewer children.

Meanwhile, parents want decent facilities. Dayton Public Schools are in the midst of a $600 million-plus school construction spree, while the largest charter schools have bright new buildings constructed with private dollars. Charter schools do not receive public dollars for school facilities; so small independent charter schools face serious facility challenges. Leaders of the East End Community School decided it was in the best interest of their students to merge with Dayton Public Schools as part of the spanking-new Ruskin Elementary School. This marriage of convenience followed from the fact that the district had a new building that it needed to fill with pupils, while East End had students but no suitable facility.

The Omega School of Excellence was never able to enroll many more than 200 students, and, in recent years, it struggled to enroll 100 students. The school's leadership faced grave financial uncertainties going into the 2008-2009 school year, and rather than roll the dice and hope for the best, they made the hard, but honorable, decision to close.

That Dayton's public education sector is in flux is a reflection of how markets work, which is not how the United States has traditionally viewed schooling. While many find it unsettling and troubling, there is also opportunity here. In cities like Chicago, Denver, New Orleans, and Cleveland, the conversations around public schools now center on how districts and charters can collaborate--without surrendering the existence of markets and choices.

The stage now is set for Dayton to start its own conversation, and the lessons learned matter to other urban districts in Ohio.

By Terry Ryan

This editorial was published as an op-ed May 30 in the Dayton Daily News (see here).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capital Matters

Out with the education czar?

Gov. Ted Strickland may not have formal control of the Ohio Department of Education, but he got half of what he wanted last week when Superintendent Susan Tave Zelman announced her resignation (see here). The news wasn't a surprise. Zelman had been actively seeking a new job and the State Board of Education had already started working to replace her. Given changing dynamics within the board and the anticipated turnover of members this winter, Strickland may not need a cabinet-level education overseer after all.

Members who have long been prominent voices and leaders on the board now seem less influential. Broad policy positions agreed to months ago now appear up for debate. Heather Heslop Licata, Strickland's sole appointee on the board and who previously was reticent to weigh in during policy discussions, now has strong opinions and takes an active role in guiding the panel's work.

There is speculation that the governor is exerting power over the department and state education policy via select board members, including some that were meeting privately with him and his staff in recent months (see here). The current board has granted the governor a significant role in choosing the next superintendent by allowing his chief of staff to participate in the selection process. Also, seven board seats are up for election in November, and the governor will appoint four board members in December. That newly comprised board elects its president in January. The new superintendent will be in place when Strickland proposes his new biennial budget and his comprehensive education reform plan next spring. So who needs an education czar?

By Emmy L. Partin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

News & Analysis

Ohio's proficiency standards far from "world-class"

A recent evaluation of proficiency standards asks how well states are doing at setting "world-class" academic expectations (see here). The answer: not great, unless you live in South Carolina, Massachusetts, Missouri, and maybe Hawaii.

The analysis, appearing in the summer 2008 issue of Education Next, holds state achievement tests up against the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Also called the nation's report card, the NAEP measures fourth and eighth graders' proficiency in reading and math. Standards are rigorous and comparable to those of international achievement tests. A state's performance on the NAEP is a good indicator of how that state would fare globally.

Ohio's proficiency standards earned a middle-of-the-pack C-, worse than 27 other states and down from a C+ four years ago. This finding shouldn't surprise Gadfly readers. Fordham drew a similar conclusion last year in The Proficiency Illusion (see here). That report also found that Ohio's math achievement tests aren't calibrated across grades, meaning that it's harder to pass the math test in some grades than it is in others.

"World-class" schools seem to be on everyone's agenda (see here and here). Ohio has much work to reach this goal and increasing the rigor of the state's achievement tests would be a good place to start.

By Emmy L. Partin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lessons of Charter-School Sponsorship

Closing a charter is painful, difficult work

Fordham has learned a lot about sponsoring charter schools in the last three years. Now we've gained experience in the unfortunate task of closing some schools. The Omega School of Excellence, and East End Community School, in Dayton, and Veritas Cesar Chavez Academy, in Cincinnati, will not reopen next year. All three closed for different reasons, and in none of the three were the governing boards in opposition with the sponsor about the need to close. Even done amicably, however, the experience provides lessons along the way that apply to charter school closures generally:

Theory collides with reality. Closing a school seems pretty straightforward: parents will send their children to good charter schools, and the poor ones will close for lack of enrollment because parents won't send their children to a bad school. This premise doesn't necessarily hold true. And, when a school does close, the reality is a complicated, confusing, painful, and expensive process for all concerned. What makes it tough is that you're dealing with stakeholders who are emotionally and financially attached to the school. For example, parents made a conscious decision to send their child to the school and the choice is being taken away from them. Teachers lose their jobs and are tossed into a tough labor market. You're forcing people to participate in the death of something about which they care deeply.
School closure is costly. This is true not just in terms of extra dollars spent by the sponsor and the school's governing authority, but also in terms of the amount of time that the sponsor, governing authority, and school staff need to devote to closure. The governing authority still needs to close the year out and complete all required financial reports, tax forms, and audits. Then there's the staff time associated with reviewing and submitting innumerable bureaucratic forms and documents to the state and federal governments. For the sponsor, the major expense is the time devoted to overseeing closure. This can take more than a year, and this is if the closure is done amicably and does not include costly lawsuits.
Responsibility falls up. If the closure is mutually agreed to, the school's governing authority and sponsor work together to do a tough job well. The buck, however, ultimately stops with the sponsor. If the closure is not amicable, the sponsor is still on the hook for ensuring that teachers show up to teach and students show up to learn. The sponsor must explain to teachers, parents, students, and the state why the school is being closed. The sponsor has to pull the trigger on whether or not to close a school before the end of the year and to ensure that proper closing procedures are followed, all state and federal reporting requirements are met and assets are distributed fairly. A sponsor that chooses to close a school against the will of the governing authority is, we assume, in a very lonely spot faced with a hostile board, disgruntled staff, angry parents and students, and curious media.
Communication is critical. The key players--state, sponsor, governing authority, and operator--must be on the same page so that all stakeholders hear consistent messages. Rumors abound, and, when you've got different people making contradictory statements or giving bad information to parents and the public, things likely will go downhill fast.
Still, leaving a school open may be worse than closing it. Allowing a school, be it underperforming or under-funded, to limp along is irresponsible and damaging to children. If it's underperforming, you subject students to attending an inferior school, which, in turn, affects their education. If it's under-funded, you put the staff and students at risk of closure mid-year. This means people have to find new schools and jobs at a time when other alternatives might be fully enrolled.

It would be much easier if a bad school closed because no one showed up any more. Because children are involved, however, closure is complicated, confusing, painful, and expensive. The biggest lesson of all is that the decision should not be made lightly.

By Kathryn Mullen Upton, Terry Ryan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Front Lines

Cell phones help kids' writing, at least if they're writing in Canadian

The explosion of cell-phone text-messaging, especially among young people, has ignited a debate about what the practice means to the skill of writing.

University of Toronto researchers say it's time to chill the worries. Derek Denis and Sali Tagliamonte studied instant messages and spoken communication of 72 people between the ages of 15 and 20 and found messaging actually helped communication enough to label it "an expansive new linguistic renaissance." The study group, reports the Cleveland Plain Dealer, possessed a good command of language, whether they were speaking, texting, or writing a formal paper.

Whoa, not a bit of it, says author and teacher Jacquie Ream. "We have a whole generation being raised without communications skills," said Ream, according to Plain Dealer reporter Scott Stephens (see here). "Kids are typing shorthand jargon that isn't even a complete thought."

Ream, of Seattle, believes that the shorthand and clichés of text-messaging and the Internet destroy the way youngsters read, think, write, and spell. As evidence, she pointed to a current National Center for Education Statistics study that suggested only one in four high school seniors is a proficient writer.

Who knows what to believe? There is, at least, this to consider. We began worrying about the communications skills of our children long before cell phones and the Internet were invented.

By Mike Lafferty

If you have an opinion for The Ohio Education Gadfly, contact Editor Mike Lafferty at [email protected]. Letters may be edited for content and clarity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Us

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. 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.