THE
OHIO EDUCATION GADFLY
A Bi-Weekly Bulletin of News and
Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Volume 3, Number 29. October 14, 2009
————————————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————————————
Argument for scaling back Ohio charter school program falls short
For its recent report analyzing the readiness of kindergarten students entering traditional district, charter, and magnet schools in seven Ohio urban districts (see here), Policy Matters Ohio deserves credit for selecting an important research question: are charter students fundamentally different from those attending district schools (more privileged, less "at risk," more motivated, etc.)? The answer to this question has profound implications for the charter school debate, which continues to rage nationally as well as in Ohio.
Unfortunately, the kudos end here.
The report, "Ready to Learn: Ohio Assessment Shows Charters, Magnets Get a Head Start" examines student scores on the Ohio Kindergarten Readiness Assessment-Literacy (KRA-L) to learn if a child's school readiness differs according to school type. The author concludes that because charter students in the study score higher on average on the KRA-L than their district peers, policymakers should rethink their reliance on charters as the solution to solving urban education problems, "if charters are getting better-prepared students and producing equal or lower achievement, then they should be scaled back, not expanded."
This conclusion is flawed on several fronts.
First and perhaps most importantly, the data chosen (KRA-L scores) aren't capable of telling us whether "charters are getting better-prepared students." The Ohio Department of Education states that the KRA-L "is NOT a comprehensive measure of school readiness or of children's potential for academic success" (caps and bold in the original text, see KRA-L policy paper here). Despite a glaring disclaimer from the ODE that the KRA-L is not intended as a measure of school readiness (the author even includes it in the report text), it is used to inform the main finding that charters get a "head start."
Second, the author's contention that charters "produce equal or lower achievement" is not based on a comprehensive look at the literature on charter performance. A new study by Caroline Hoxby (see here) has received an enormous amount of attention by charter advocates and opponents alike (see here, here, here, and here). The Hoxby study, which compared New York City students accepted by lottery into charters with district students who applied to the same school but were not accepted, found that charter students scored six percentage points higher in math and five in English than their peers. Perhaps most significant is that Hoxby's research was based on a randomized experiment, thus meeting "gold" research standards and disproving the argument that charters steal the best students from district schools.
The Hoxby report is not brought up to garner unabashed support for charters, but to show that the literature review conducted for thePolicy Matters report was incomplete at best--and intentionally biased at worst. One could just as easily select research such as Hoxby's to make an inference about why the charter sector in Ohio must be expanded.
There are additional weaknesses to the Policy Matters report. These include:
Overall, the report's suggestion that "charter schools are not educating the state's poorest and most at-risk children," along with its call to "scale back charters," is vague and results in no useful policy recommendations. What might "scaling back" of charters look like? Caps on the creation of more charters? Reductions in funding to existing ones? Heightened accountability for charter sponsors? And will this be applied equally to cities like Dayton where the charter sector regularly outperforms the local school district?
Ohio's students, especially the neediest among them, deserve high-quality schooling, regardless of whether it is delivered by a district or charter public school. Fordham's analysis of the 2008-09 Ohio local report card data (see here) illustrates that although proficiency rates for students in urban charter and district schools alike are still inexcusably low, in Dayton and Cleveland students are better served by charters than district schools. And these urban charter students and their families -- contrary to what Policy Matters suggests -- are demographically similar to their district peers, inasmuch as they are disproportionately poor, low-income, and are tired of being trapped in failing district schools.
A biased call from a union-backed organization to scale back charters is unsurprising in Ohio's hostile climate, and this report adds nothing fruitful to the conversation about how to improve accountability and quality in public education. Further, and surely this was by design, it threatens to contribute to the widespread misunderstanding about charter schools.
———————————————————————————————————————
Ohio approaches a do-or-die watershed in education
Top-notch academic standards will fail without good teachers, academically oriented administrators, and citizens who hold education dear, according to experts who headlined a conference on world-class academic standards in Columbus last week (see video of the conference here).
That last one may be particularly troubling. "We are so busy worrying about the adult comfort level of House Bill 1 [which spells out the state's new, revamped education program], we've got to worry about what this means to kids," State Superintendent Deborah Delisle told conference attendees. "I have yet to see a sense of urgency across the state about the importance of education.''
The implication: Better testing, more challenging career- and college-oriented academic standards, better teacher quality and training, and even more money may, in the end, be inadequate if Ohioans don't care enough about the education of their children.
The conference, "World-Class Academic Standards for Ohio," was sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the Ohio Grantmakers Forum, KidsOhio.org, the Ohio Business Alliance for Higher Education and the Economy, Ohio Education Matters, and the Ohio Association for Public Charter Schools, with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The conference was aimed, in part, at helping the Ohio State Board of Education complete revisions to its K-12 education standards by June 2010. Clearly the state must improve dramatically on its current standards according to panelists, and it appears from recent comments that both the state board and the state superintendent are committed to the task (see here).
"The Ohio Core [the coursework required for graduation in Ohio] is a good intermediate step toward world-class standards," Michael Cohen, president of Achieve, Inc., told the conference. The state's new standards must, at a minimum, align school curricula 1) with the needs of employers looking for productive workers, and 2) with the academic needs of colleges tired of wasting their time and student dollars teaching first-year students remedial math, science, and reading.
But that's just the minimum. The higher the state sets its bar, the better for all Ohio students, said David Driscoll, former Massachusetts education commissioner and Fordham board member. "I suggest you set high standards because you will get that many more students improving," he said. After revamping standards, pushing teachers to higher achievement, transforming principals into educational leaders in their schools, and spending an extra $2 billion on education, Massachusetts vaulted from so-so to the top tier on national and international achievement tests.
What the state school board, however, ought not to do is use the new standards to "order" improvement. "We too often tell (school) districts what to do on a daily basis," said Gene Wilhoit, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers. Once school districts understand what the standards expect, they should be given freedom to get the results, he said.
The state's plan to vastly expand the number of Ohioans attending college could be in trouble if high school graduates are not actually college ready, said Stan Jones, former Indiana commissioner for higher education. That was Indiana's experience a few years ago when the state initiated a high-school-to-college push similar to one underway now in Ohio. "The colleges found the high school graduates needed remediation," he said. Adopting high standards isn't enough. The state needs standards to define what a graduate needs to know, he said, and it needs assessment testing to ensure that graduates actually know it.
Toward that end, Ohio Board of Regents Chancellor Eric Fingerhut said it is vital for Ohio's teacher education programs to deliver better teachers. "We need to recruit the best possible teachers," he said. "Ohio schools have an obligation to produce graduates who can deliver in the classroom."
Lawmakers seek improvements to school rating system
A bill sponsored by State Senator Gary Cates (R- Butler County) would lessen the blow to otherwise high-performing districts that fail to make adequate academic progress with a few subgroups of students. Currently, a district that fails to achieve federally mandated "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) for three consecutive years can be rated no higher than Continuous Improvement (or "C") by the state. In August, Kettering City Schools saw its overall performance improve (the district met 29 of the state's 30 academic performance indicators last year, up from 28 the year before and 26 two years ago) but was rated Continuous Improvement because it failed to make AYP with English language learners and special education students. Without the AYP provision, Kettering would have ranked four categories higher at Excellent with Distinction, the state's highest rating (see here). Lebanon City Schools experienced a similar drop in its rating.
Senate Bill 167 specifies that a district's rating could only be negatively impacted by AYP if the district missed AYP for the same two subgroups of students for three consecutive years, and in that case the district's rating would only drop one level, not directly to Continuous Improvement (see here). Cates introduced the bill in response to concerns from officials in Kettering, Lebanon, and other communities that such a swift drop in a district's rating could have a negative impact on the community beyond the schoolhouse walls.
"Businesses, taxpayers, government leaders and parents all put a tremendous emphasis on school district ratings. Many companies look at school ratings when deciding to locate in a particular community. Taxpayers may use performance ratings to determine whether they will vote yes or no an important levy. And, parents use rankings to evaluate the quality of their child's education and the effectiveness of local teachers and administrators," explained Cates. "While Ohio's schools should make every effort to ensure all kids have the opportunity to succeed in the classroom, traditionally high-performing districts should not see their ratings plunge, and their reputation tarnished, because of the performance of a small subgroup of students."
The bill also addresses the other end of the Continuous Improvement spectrum, those otherwise low-performing districts that see their rating bumped up to a "C" simply for making AYP. Marion City Schools met none of the state's 30 academic performance indicators this year, but was rated Continuous Improvement due to the AYP provision; meanwhile, Youngstown City Schools met two indicators but saw a rating of Academic Emergency. Under Cates' proposal, a district would need to make AYP and meet at least 10 indicators to earn the "C" rating. Eighteen districts, including Akron, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo, could lose their Continuous Improvement status if the proposed changes are enacted.
A companion bill is still being packaged in the House and there is hope for bipartisan support for the measure.
———————————————————————————————————————
Massachusetts can offer some direction to Ohio's academic standards effort
David Driscoll, former Massachusetts education commissioner, sat down with the Ohio Gadfly last week after the "World-Class Academic Standards for Ohio" conference. Driscoll is now a member of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Foundation board of trustees.
What was the genesis of the Massachusetts rebound in education?
It was passing a comprehensive law [in 1993] that some people called, potentially, the most effective law in the country. It was a compact that said that we're going to give schools and districts the tools and hold them accountable for results. On the tools side it was $2 billion more over seven years--a foundation budget that gave more to poorer districts. But it demanded professional development, training for teachers, student testing and accountability for schools and districts.
At the conference, you mentioned how a large number of Massachusetts' teachers lacked competency in math, communications, and literacy. Yet, the state has improved dramatically in education. Can you explain?
Standards and assessment sometimes drive the system in spite of a lack of teacher training. However, teacher quality is vitally important. But even if there hadn't been progress in teacher training I think students would have progressed. What most people don't realize is that student testing for high school graduation, which began in 2001, was big news but teacher testing for communications and literacy in 1991 was bigger news because 61 percent of teachers failed the test. The training of our teachers had to improve overnight because they had to pass the test. So, the new system for testing teachers was combined with a new system for student testing and they both drove student progress. The tests fixated student attention on learning and it was the same with teachers.
If we want world-class standards that means looking at standards outside the country. Where?
Singapore. People are looking at China and India because of the improvement they've seen. There, it's the hunger to learn. Huge numbers of kids are advancing, learning English as well as their own language. They don't have the total answer but there are still so many children performing at high levels. Also we need to look at Finland, Australia, and Japan. What we [in Massachusetts] learned from Japan was the need for teacher competence and the need to motivate kids to learn. Also, the big thing in other countries is they settle on [national] standards and don't have 50 [state] versions of standards.
What has Massachusetts still to do?
Like everyone else we face financial challenges that have resulted in the reduction of programs--music for example--and in higher class sizes. Even if the economy rebounds, schools will have to do more with less. We're not going to have another huge influx of money like we had in the 1990s. We may lead the country but we're the best of a poor lot. We still have way too many kids--particularly kids of color--not finishing school. Only 20 percent of our urban kids ultimately get college degrees.... We still have close to the national average for dropouts. We still have an achievement gap. It's still educational achievement by zip code. We have standards and alignment and they have produced results but kids still come to school hungry. We haven't yet dealt with the social and psychological issues kids have.
What kind of pushback did you get in Massachusetts when you revamped your standards?
All the regular stuff. I was burned in effigy. People said we can't set high standards. They won't work; they will increase the dropout rate. The state shouldn't tell locals what to do, it's a waste of time to test and the money should be spent on other things, and we're taking the joy out of education. All of those criticisms could be right if testing is implemented in the wrong way. People who implement standards and assessments through fear do cause negativity and misery around students. Those who approach it positively--who know testing is telling us what we need to know--still have engaging and creative classrooms. These are the teachers that get the best result and there are, thankfully, many examples in Massachusetts that help drive success. In the schools getting the best results, you will not find teachers teaching to the state achievement test. You will find kids productive and engaged. Their principals and teachers have set high expectations and given students the support they need. That's what reform is about.
On Massachusetts' continuum, where is Ohio?
Ohio strikes me as being where Massachusetts was in the late 1980s. There were a lot of earnest attempts to address problems, especially the financial formula.... We didn't get it right the first couple of times. It wasn't until 1993 that everyone--the unions, principals, business community, and others--all compromised. Teachers, for example, had to agree to take courses to maintain a teaching license. They had to agree to allow prospective teachers to be tested. Principals gave up collective-bargaining rights. School committees [school boards] gave up the right to appoint personnel.
You're familiar with the evolution wars in Ohio and Kansas pertaining to science standards. There is a concern among some state board watchers in Ohio that conservative religious elements are attempting to subvert the science curriculum and, perhaps, the curriculum in other academic areas as the state revamps its standards. Is this a nuisance or a threat?
This is a threat to the integrity of standards. When people interject ideology then they are, in fact, distracting from what should be the business of schools to educate kids to high levels. Education becomes politicized. We didn't tolerate anything like that. We have enough to worry about to get standards right without these distractions to satisfy individual perspectives, belief theories, religion, and ideology.
Ohio has had a 21st century skills debate. You have called it a silly debate. Why?
Public education can't seem to move forward without a useless debate. For example, we argue phonetics versus whole language when we need both. We argue about math understanding versus drill when we need both. In the case of 21st century skills, people see them in place of content when, in fact, strong content has to be at the core of all of our standards. So-called 21st century skills, such as critical thinking and problem solving, should be part of an exciting and engaging curriculum in which kids learn content. However, I disagree strongly with the new law in Ohio that suggests we're going to measure 21st century skills. What you want to continue to measure is student progression using well laid out achievement tests. I don't think they're 21st century skills anyway. Benjamin Franklin was pretty creative in the 18th century.
True or false, teacher colleges are so remote from classroom reality, in 20 years we'll still be complaining that their graduates don't know enough content.
Unfortunately that's probably true. You would think that institutions that need to prepare candidates for a certain industry would be closely connected to that industry and aware of the changes going on in that industry. In most states, and it's true in Massachusetts, there's a certain isolation that seems to occur. It's an age-old problem and we don't seem to be attacking it in any fundamental way. Fortunately, there are competing forces such as Teach for America.
What kind of an issue was local control in Massachusetts?
We had the same problems in Massachusetts as in other states. Local districts were saying, "We have kids and we know what we're doing. Leave us alone." Slowly but surely local control is being eroded, and I think you're going to see more and more erosion of local control as schools continue to fail to produce results.
Are schools maxed out with testing?
There is a point where there is too much testing. No Child Left Behind doubled testing in Massachusetts. It can become inefficient. We could have a combination of state-administered and locally administered tests of shorter duration and we could connect those so we wouldn't lose trend data. Online [state] testing may come along and help. I think we ought to get more efficient and there is a point at which the amount of time used for state testing is an imposition and I think we're at that point.
What's your advice to the Ohio State Board of Education as they revamp standards?
They're on a difficult timeline. Ohio is part of the effort to develop common national standards. The preliminary national standards will be released in January. They'll come out before the Ohio standards are due. I would urge the state board to align with the national standards. They'd be able to take advantage of that collective effort. What I urge them not to do is, in any way, lower standards. We have an obligation to set high standards and high expectations for all kids and to stick to them. It may be we have to provide more time and additional supports to help kids get there, but if we set the right standards, we're clear about them, and we don't waste time arguing about them and getting distracted, then we will make great strides. The whole system will shift.
———————————————————————————————————————
Assessing Common Core standards
In Fordham's latest report, Stars By Which to Navigate? Scanning National and International Education Standards in 2009, expert reviewers appraised the draft "Common Core" standards and compared them to the reading/writing and math frameworks that undergird the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and the Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA). The strengths and quality of these efforts vary significantly. Read the report here.
———————————————————————————————————————
Tax increase may be lesser of two evils for Ohio's schools, by Terry Ryan
Ohio has been handed a bucket of lemons when it comes to the economy and its impact on the state's finances. But, state leaders have the opportunity to make lemonade if they work together around education in the coming weeks... Read the full post here.
Media can help reframe views on teachers unions. Wish Ohioans would pay attention. by Jamie Davies O'Leary
An opinion piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal is encouragement to anyone who bemoans the tendency of teachers unions to thwart reform efforts. "How Teachers Unions Lost the Media" points out that teachers unions increasingly have been scrutinized by the press, even targeted by "liberal" papers like the New York Times. The evidence of this media shift lies not just in the name-calling ("indefensible," "barriers" etc.) of certain union practices but in the fact that many outlets have stood up for controversial figures like Michelle Rhee and have profiled the successes our nation's most impressive charter school networks... Read the full post 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.