THE
OHIO EDUCATION GADFLY
A Bi-Weekly Bulletin of News and
Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Volume 3, Number 19. June 24, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gadfly is off to the beach or the mountains or maybe just a nice, shady spot under a tree for the month of July. Look for our next regular issue to buzz into your inbox August 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio undergrads tell state leaders what's on their minds
The Fordham Institute's latest report on how young Ohioans view their state--it's really nice but they are looking for jobs and Ohio is hurting on this front--has received an astounding reception. The report, Losing Ohio's Future: Why college graduates flee the Buckeye State and what might be done about it (see here), struck a chord with lawmakers, business leaders, higher education officials, citizens, and the news media because it gives some hard numbers to a problem that everyone recognizes but can't quite put their fingers on.
From Cleveland to Cincinnati, Toledo to Columbus, major and minor newspapers and dozens of television and radio stations carried reports for several days (see here, here, and here) after the survey was released June 15. Fordham officials and the survey's analyst Steve Farkas were extensively quoted (see here) and the story was picked up nationally in Detroit, New York City, Hartford, and other places.
Fordham contracted with the New York City-based FDR Group to conduct the survey, which is believed to be the first to utilize an Internet social-networking site to reach respondents where they spend much of their time. Using Facebook and random samples provided by colleges, the FDR Group interviewed 811 sophomores, juniors, and seniors at Case Western Reserve University, Kent State University, Miami University, Oberlin College, Ohio State University, Ohio University, and University of Dayton. The results, however, could probably be extended to graduates of all of Ohio's four-year public and private colleges and universities.
The survey fleshes out the idea of the "brain drain" that has been buffeting Ohio for at least a quarter century but has been receiving increased attention in the last decade (see here, here, and here). However, the results are especially disturbing given the state's recession-bashed economy, 10-percent unemployment rate (more than 600,000 people on unemployment rolls), the loss of 235,000 jobs in the last year alone, and attempts to boost not only Ohio's education system but its high-technology future with massive Third Frontier spending and a focus on green technologies.
According to the report, 58 percent of undergraduates surveyed plan to leave the state after graduation. Broken down, the numbers are tough--51 percent of native Ohioan undergraduates expect to leave while 79 percent of non-Ohioan undergrads expect to leave when they get their diplomas. The undergraduates are looking for jobs that offer a future. They are also looking to live in a place that is "active, exciting and fun." Ohio fares poorly on both in the eyes of college students.
The fact that the survey generated so much attention indicates that a critical mass may be developing among Ohioans and their leaders to do something about the loss of our best-and-brightest, an issue which cuts across party and ideological lines. Ohio may be down, along with many other Midwestern states (see here) but we're not out. The fact that nine of the 15 metropolitan areas with the largest decline in economic output were in Florida, Michigan, and Ohio, according to Moody's (see here), is a call to action.
Ohio Board of Regents Chancellor Eric Fingerhut called the Fordham report "timely" and its findings have resonated with politicians of both parties. Ironically, the survey comes as the lawmakers are considering cutting a far-reaching expansion of the state's college internship program--exactly the kind of program that undergraduates say can lead to the jobs that would be a reason for them to stay in Ohio. This year, the state is providing internship funding for more than 46,000 students who can learn about a future career and obtain college credit at the same time (see here).
"We feel very strongly that this program ... could really leapfrog Ohio. ... It could make Ohio one of the most top-rated states in terms of the linkage of jobs for our graduates through internships," said Fingerhut, who wants to at least double internship numbers by 2017 (see here).
The program, however, is now a choice between short-term demands and what's needed for the future. Chancellor Fingerhut will have to convince lawmakers (many of whom support the effort), who are struggling to cut $3.2 billion from the state's biennial budget, that this program is indeed worth $50 million a year over five years.
Students make it clear they are worried about jobs. Nearly nine in 10 Ohio college students (89 percent) say good jobs and career opportunities will be the decider in determining where to live during the first few years after graduation. Yet only 11 percent of them view Ohio as a good prospect on this front. Ohio, the students believe, has a serious image problem.
The report came out a week after National Cash Register (NCR) announced it is leaving Fordham's hometown of Dayton, the city where John Patterson founded the company in 1884. Dayton was already shell-shocked from the loss of tens of thousands of jobs from General Motors and other manufacturers, so the Fordham study especially rang true there. The reason NCR said it was leaving? It would be easier hire and retain workers in Georgia (see here).
That stings.
But other states have their own technology programs, which tends to level the playing field. Georgia has an especially active one. The state has been pumping money into science research and development for years. Graduates also have their own ideas of what makes a nice place to live after work. Some of these desires were a surprise to Ohio leaders.
"They don't really care as much as we thought about the cost of living," said Dayton entrepreneur Mike Ervin, who is spearheading a movement to revitalize that city's urban core. He made the comment at a meeting of city leaders called to discuss the survey results at a meeting hosted jointly by the University of Dayton and the Fordham Institute (see here). "They want a cool funky place. A strong central city is important," Ervin said "They go to these (other) urban centers because they offer the lifestyle that graduates want."
Employers, like NCR, are paying attention and are moving to where well-educated young people want to live and work. Community boosters in Dayton look around and see a nice place to set roots. However, the Fordham survey indicates that there is a major disconnect between the students on campus and their surrounding communities. Students don't necessarily know how nice the college towns are or what kind of parks and cultural attractions are just down the block or around the corner from campus, let alone what jobs there are in the community for them.
So, how do we keep these young graduates here?
"You have to reach out and engage them aggressively," former Gov. Bob Taft told the gathering in Dayton. The state, however, has to have something to offer and the students provided some ideas through the survey.
There is a huge need to "market the region" was a call made by many who read the Fordham report and commented on it. Ohio's major cities don't have mountains or seashores so city leaders must make young people aware of the benefits of living here. There's no better time to do that when they are in the state attending college. "In Boston if you are out at 5 p.m. on any weekday it's wall-to-wall young people. They're flirting and socializing. We do not have that in Dayton. The only counter to it is to make jobs exciting," said Matt Diggs, a retired Dayton business executive. Still, there is an awful lot of culture, lively arts, restaurants, and nightlife in the state, including in once-proud manufacturing and technology centers.
Thomas Matthews, director of Case Western Reserve University's Career Center, told a Cleveland television reporter internships are very helpful in getting students to test the waters and learn about the surrounding community.
"I'm from Florida. Cleveland and Ohio have so much to offer, the best medical system, Playhouse, and the best universities in the nation," a Case Western student told the reporter. That's music to the ears of state boosters.
But another student told the Cleveland Plain Dealer (see here) that with jobs scarce, he would go wherever he could find work. Right now, he's an intern at the Diebold company and has his fingers crossed it turns into a permanent job, right here in Ohio.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policies aimed at creating and implementing better academic standards are spreading across the nation like a firestorm. Ohio is no exception to these winds of change. In the Buckeye State, the governor's budget proposal and the House-passed version of H.B. 1--the state's biennial budget bill--call for overhauling the state's academic standards by adding new standards that focus on "21st Century Skills." In contrast, the Senate-passed version of H.B. 1 would require the State Board of Education and superintendent to study and make recommendations by July 1, 2010 to: 1) address the necessity of implementing changes to the standard and assessment system, 2) develop a timeline that would be required for implementation, 3) estimate implementation costs, and 4) formulate necessary legislative changes. The Senate version also removes mention of standards for 21st Century Skills. As the House and Senate battle over these competing proposals in conference committee, the national discussion is just getting stoked.
Over the last year, the national standards movement--or what many refer to as "common standards"--has gathered momentum and energy with the release of several high-profile reports. In July 2008, Achieve released Out of Many, One: Toward Rigorous Common Core Standards from the Ground Up (see here). The National Governors Association (NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and Achieve followed in December with Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring US Students Receive a World-class Education (see here). In April, the Broad and Gates foundations pushed for developing common American standards in Smart Options: Investing the Recovery Funds for Student Success (see here). The Carnegie Foundation this month recommended the creation of common math and science standards with accompanying assessments in The Opportunity Equation (see here).
Forty-nine states and territories are also voluntarily collaborating to push for common standards. Ohio has joined the Common Core State Standards Initiative (see here), an effort sponsored by CCSSO and NGA. Only Alaska, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas haven't signed up (see here). Alaska is monitoring the situation before signing on. Missouri and South Carolina are holding out for a mix of political and bureaucratic reasons. But Texas has balked because it just approved new English and math standards at a cost of an estimated $3 billion (see here).
Finally, the U.S. Department of Education has been vocal about both strengthening academic standards in America and pushing the creation of common standards across the states. Education Secretary Arne Duncan argues, "The idea of 50 states doing their own thing doesn't make sense," (see here). In order to receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, states must agree to implement requirements to develop college and career-ready standards. Last week, Secretary Duncan called for putting $350 million to fund the tests that will be used to assess the standards determined by the Common Core State Standards Initiative (see here).
As the national movement toward common standards charges forward, the discussion becomes more controversial. States are expressing reservations about the rush toward national standards. Utah lawmakers worry that national standards will undermine the state's education authority (see here). California provided conditions for signing up to the Common Core State Standards Initiative (see here and here). Subject matter interest groups (such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the International Reading Association) also want a say in the development of the standards (see here).
Because of strong pushes at both the national and state levels, Ohio finds itself in a catch-22. Without a doubt, Ohio's mediocre standards, developed over a decade ago, need updating (see here). Yet, moving forward alone with significant revisions (as with the governor's proposal and House-passed version of H.B.1) poses challenges while the national firestorm intensifies. If the national standards movement leads to world-class standards, then Ohio's hard work to revise its standards risks becoming irrelevant or a costly and ultimately unnecessary effort. If Ohio waits and sees what comes of the national movement that, too, can backfire. Going along with the Common Core State Standards Initiative (or others like it) is not a sure-fire bet for better standards. Nothing may come of the effort as it could fall under competing political pressures. Or, it may take years for standards to be developed and agreed to by states and, in the end, they may not be what Ohio's children need.
What's Ohio to do? Ohio needs to be a leader in these national conversations and be seen as a full partner in the effort to develop common core standards. At home, Ohio needs to be prudent with any revisions it does make and not fall prone to fads or calls for giving all stakeholders a voice at the risk of subject content. The Senate version of H.B. 1 best approximates this position (see here for our H.B. 1 analyses). With thoughtful preparation, Ohio will be able capitalize on the national standards movement either by embracing the effort outright or taking what good work these efforts generate and customizing it to Ohio's needs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Front Lines of Schools: Perspectives of Teachers and Principals on the High School Dropout Problem
John M. Bridgeland, John J. Dilulio, Jr., and Robert Balfanz, Civic Enterprises with Peter D. Hart Research Associates
June 2009
Civic Enterprises, in The Silent Epidemic, surveyed dropouts to understand the reasons large numbers of students decided to leave high school before graduation (see here). This 2006 report demonstrated that students cite boredom and not being challenged as reasons for dropping out. In On the Front Lines of Schools, the focus turns to surveying public school principals and teachers across America to learn their perceptions of the high-school dropout problem. Predictably, the survey found that principals and teachers have a different view of the problem than students. This gap can be seen in the principals' and teachers' refusal to believe boredom in school was a credible excuse for dropping out, and they were more likely to blame unprepared students and lack of parental involvement.
The study also reveals differences between principals and teachers, particularly on the tracking of college-bound and non-college-bound students. While 59 percent of teachers thought a separate track should be made, only 41 percent of principals wanted this. The study's authors disagreed with the teachers' idea here and soundly rejected a separate track, explaining that all children should be prepared for college.
As about one-third of public high school students do not graduate, the authors tackle an important issue in this report. Unfortunately, the findings show that teachers, principals, and students all have a tendency to blame each other for their failures. It is a cause for some optimism, however, that all groups believe we can do better. While consensus on the type of reform is hard to find, the survey discovers that such ideas as alternative learning environments, which have been successful in some cases, are widely supported among students, principals and teachers.
With a public high-school graduation rate of 75.9 percent, Ohio is about five points above the national average (see here). The Buckeye State should consider seriously the lessons from On the Front Lines of Schools and ensure that measures are taken to prepare each high-school student for college.
For the report, see here.
Why We're Behind: What Top Nations Teach Their Students But We Don't
Common Core
June 2009
Are you smarter than a 5th grader? In Hong Kong, probably not.
Common Core's report on international standards, Why We're Behind: What Top Nations Teach Their Students, But We Don't, compiles tests and curricula from nine nations that receive consistently high scores on PISA (an international assessment). It's tempting to take the tests they provide to see if you can do the work of a twelfth grader in Canada or the fifth grader in Hong Kong. And that's the point, really. Could you do that? Can we do that? And by we, of course, I mean America.
This overview of high-scoring countries with rich standards does not include the United States, which continually occupies a distinctly less-admirable spot on the rankings. The countries it does include, however, are Finland, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. In three essays interspersed between primary documents outlining standards from each of the nations, Common Core addresses how these countries are different and what American can do to improve.
The first essay, by Martin West, an assistant professor of education, political science, and public policy at Brown University, notes how the highlighted countries have a wide spectrum for their standards. Students are primarily tested on reading, math, and science (as are students in the United States per NCLB), but their standards, by and large, include equally weighted requirements for history, literature, art, and music. The second essay, by Sheila Byrd Carmichael, an education policy consultant, discusses how these wide-ranging standards also have a markedly high level of content specificity. In the third essay, by Eduardo Andere, a Mexican education expert, the author observes that, generally, high-performing countries do not spend much of their time worrying about how to become high-performing. Their focus, overwhelmingly, is on the development of the individual student.
This report provides an interesting international basis for arguments made over the budget and education here in Ohio. It comes out strongly against the 21st century skills movement and advocates for individual learning, which would seem to support a per-pupil funding system.
For both individual states and national policymakers, it is a thought-provoking report. Its weakness lies in the inability to make true comparisons. Some nations' standards are represented by their high school exit exams, others by seventh-grade science requirements. But its relevance is also due, in large part, to these striking visual reminders of what learning can look like. Every nation has unique problems, and, as admitted by the report, there is not a common solution. So as we stridently work toward reform, we should consider our international neighbors and use the spirit of their curricula to form our own inimitably American standards.
For the report, see here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.