THE
OHIO EDUCATION GADFLY
A Bi-Weekly Bulletin of News and
Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Volume 3, Number 33. December 2, 2009
————————————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————————————
Mark North, Superintendent of Lebanon City Schools
The Ohio Education Gadfly recently caught up with Lebanon City Schools Superintendent Mark North about House Bill 1, the state's rating system for school districts, and how his district is achieving success while spending far less money per-pupil than comparable districts.
Q: What's your opinion of House Bill 1?
In theory, there are some good things that can be supported with research. My biggest concern -- unless you tie in how it's going to be funded -- I don't know how practical these theories will be in practice. Everything costs something. It's great to mandate things that will help but if you cannot tie in how it's going to be funded it's more difficult to take those practices, or in this case the legislation, and realistically implement them.... for example, all-day kindergarten.
In our district, just the additional staffing for all-day kindergarten will take almost $1 million. In addition to that you have to have twice as many [kindergarten] classrooms. We're growing at 75-125 students per year. We've added modular classrooms almost every year. They cost a lot of money to purchase and install and this is money that has to come from somewhere else. It could cost us $8 million-$10 million to build and supply the facilities for all-day kindergarten.
It's the same with the student-teacher ratio. We have 26-28 students per teacher in kindergarten through third grade.....To lower that (to the mandated 1-15) someone suggested we just add another teacher to the classroom. You have already 27 children in a classroom and they are already shoulder to shoulder. You add another teacher and another seven or eight students to get the ratios in line and there is not enough physical space to do it. All-day kindergarten and lower student-teacher ratios are good ideas but if you don't have the money to pay for it you can't do it.
Q: The governor's school funding plan allows districts to ask voters to approve "conversion levies" that would allow local property tax revenue to grow along with inflation. What sort of financial boost would such a levy have on your district? Do you plan to ask voters to approve one? Do you think your voters would okay a conversion levy?
In the spring of 2011 we will have to ask voters to pass the current 5.4 mill renewal levy. In addition, we will need to ask for approximately 6.3 mills to just sustain what we are currently funding. We are a district that operates at one of the lowest per-pupil expenditures in the state. This combination of levies totals approximately 11.7 mills. This request to increase taxes does not consider the additional cost of the mandates from H.B. 1. The odds of passing the renewal with the additional levy are extremely slim. The chance to pass any conversion levy to generate revenue for the additional mandates will be impossible.
Q: You've had some problems with the way Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is used to calculate the district's academic rating on the state-issued local report card. It's really hurt Lebanon. Can you explain?
We try to be excellent stewards of the public's money. When it comes to the outcome of this rating, it is important that the rating communicates in an equitable manner to the public. It should be [with] some kind of consistency so... all school districts are graded and reviewed and rated in an equitable manner. We achieved 29 of 30 state academic indicators that made our district Excellent with Distinction. We've increased our performance index for the fourth straight year. We're up to 101.6 [out of 120 possible points]. The third area is valued added, which we met.
But our Adequate Yearly Progress, we did not make that. Of the 10 subgroups, two of our subgroups (Hispanic and Limited English Proficient) did not pass reading, and because of that we dropped to Continuous Improvement. Out of almost 3,000 students who passed the test we had 10 students in one particular subgroup that did not pass reading. That's one-third of one percent. Also, since students can be in both categories -- a student in the Hispanic subgroup can also be in the LEP subgroup, if the student does not pass the reading test it counts as two failures. About 76 percent of our Hispanic students are also in the LEP subgroup. (To better understand the problem with the Continuous Improvement rating click here.)
Q: What did you expect? You knew this was going to happen didn't you?
We had concerns. We made changes to our academic plan last year and also developed a district intervention plan [for at-risk students]. For example, we hired additional intervention tutors but working through the process takes time. We've made this a better environment and increased assistance to students. You have to develop a plan and a budget. You just don't snap your fingers and all of a sudden fix something....On the first day of school, we had a plan in place but when we got our results over the summer we fell short in addressing those two AYP areas.
Q: What's wrong with that? It's the state using the stick.
We have the responsibility to educate all our children. We take that very seriously. We make no excuses for that. We have changed the way we do things. We know we need to do a better job. The scoring system and its implications is a different issue. We've implemented changes to provide better support for various subgroups but, in my mind, that's a separate issue than the overall final effect when we're rated.
Q: Is too much emphasis placed on the final rating?
Too much emphasis is placed on the final rating. It's very simple to see where a district is doing well and where it's not doing as well as it should. We met 29 out of 30 academic indicators. Our performance index has increased for four years. Our Value Added is met....We haven't, however, done as well is in the area of providing support for all of our students to be successful.
Our Hispanic LEP subgroups are where I'd like to apply my attention....But this emphasis on the overall score rather than the emphasis on each category hurts. When schools get scores, they're labeled. That's what the media focuses on and that's what the public hears. But it's not that simple. We do extremely well in providing educational support and environment for a large majority of students but where we lacked was providing support for our LEP and Hispanic subgroups. We should focus on taking care of the needs of each child and that gets lost in the overall labeling and discussion of how a district rates. It's never been about a district, in my mind, it's about each child.
Q: What kind of effect has the Continuous Improvement rating had on the district?
We are located halfway between Dayton and Cincinnati. People shop for schools and they see this as a big indicator as to what kind of school they're looking for when it comes to their child. People have that as a high priority. There are eight school districts in our county. We do not make the short list. As far as people who live in Lebanon...most people are very happy with the education their children are receiving. People ask why we're in Continuous Improvement. I explain to them the system without making excuses....I can explain it. I don't think it's a good system but it is the system.
Q: Other districts are getting hammered like this. Will S.B. 167 fix the problem?
It addresses the idea that a school district should be evaluated equally across all categories. Right now that's not the case. There are districts that pass 16 indicators and they're ranked as an excellent district. We pass 29 and we're Continuous Improvement. Some districts pass zero indicators and they're Continuous Improvement....We know we need to do a better job. Last year, it was Hispanic students and three years ago it was special education (students). We made adjustments in our special education subgroup that makes up between 11 percent and 12 percent of our district students. Our special education students are now passing reading. School districts are responsible for fixing the problem but [the bill] makes it an equitable way to rate schools across the state.
Q: You have been one of the districts that seem to accomplish a lot with a little.
There are three things you try to accomplish. We want to provide the best education and best opportunity and be accountable. Last year we spent $7,440 per student. Only 22 school districts out of 614 statewide spent less. We have maintained an Excellent rating for seven years before this year....We can give [students] a good foundation to set goals and make choices and go after what they would like to achieve.
On the other hand we are mindful that we rely on the good graces of our congregation. They determine how much they will donate through their willingness to support levies.... Legislators may have good intentions and good reasons but...we must all work together. In reaching our goals, someone has to pay the bills.
Q: You have an innovative program to help boost test scores. Can you describe that?
It's our College Life-Skills Class....It's been going for nine years. Typically juniors take it. They learn how to fill out financial aid forms, search for colleges, even campus safety. There are a lot of different aspects in selecting and getting ready for college.
The other part is working with students to improve ACT and SAT scores. In Lebanon we've been seeing improvements of three-to-five points on ACT scores on average. Some students go up as high as 10 [points]. When you're looking to go to a particular college and gain scholarship opportunities, those ACT scores are important.
In Lebanon High School, 76 percent take the ACT or SAT. We have 25 percent of our students receiving free-or-reduced [price] lunches so it's not a wealthy suburban district. We have raised scores from 12 to 16; some from 26 to 30. It makes the difference in getting into a particular college or gaining financial support. We've had schools from across the state interested, especially since the Cincinnati Enquirer ran a newspaper article on this program. Districts from as far away as Hawaii, Alaska and Texas have contacted us about it.
———————————————————————————————————————
New report from The New Teacher Project hopes to inform upcoming teacher contract negotiations in Cincinnati
Yesterday representatives from The New Teacher Project (TNTP), alongside Cincinnati superintendent Mary Ronan and president of the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers (CFT), Julie Sellers, gathered for the release of TNTP's Cincinnati-focused teacher effectiveness report. TNTP researchers presented recommendations from their 87-page study of the district's human capital approach, including controversial suggestions to sack the current teacher evaluation system, base teacher evaluations largely on student academic performance, install a differentiated compensation system, and empower principals with more authority over teacher hiring and evaluations.
The report's laser focus on defining "teacher effectiveness" by linking it to student achievement data mirrors comments from U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and embodies the federal Race to the Top priorities (in fact, the TNTP report couldn't be more timely -- "effective teaching and leadership" is the single most important category in the RttT application).
Unfortunately, many of TNTP's recommendations with the most promise to ameliorate Cincinnati's perennially low academic performance will not be well-received by the CFT. Despite the collaborative nature of the report (which relied heavily on teacher and principal surveys for the findings) and the message delivered by Dan Weisberg, TNTP's vice president of policy, that "teachers are not the problem; teachers are the solution," the teachers union appears to be taking a defensive stance.
The Enquirer reports this morning that the CFT is reticent to scrap the current teacher evaluation system, is concerned with the fairness of individual performance bonuses, and is uncomfortable with shifting more authority to principals (this undermines nearly half of the report's recommendations). They no doubt also oppose doing away with "last hired/first fired" as well. While the CFT appears to be open to some tweaks, like adopting a "mutual consent" transfer system that would end forced teacher hiring/transfers, this only tinkers with the current system and would be insufficient to truly improve teacher effectiveness within CPS.
The conversation started yesterday in Cincinnati is critical not only for the Queen City, but for districts across the state that face similar challenges and constraints when it comes to modernizing how teachers are rewarded, advanced professionally and held accountable for their performance.
Ohio School Funding Advisory Council under critique
Today the Dayton Daily News ran an editorial criticizing the makeup off Gov. Strickland's Ohio School Funding Advisory Council. The Council's purpose is to develop recommendations for improving the state's school funding model. The article laments that key players from Dayton are not represented on the panel, and names Fordham's vice president of programs and policy Terry Ryan among those whose voices are sorely missed.
In a previous Ohio Education Gadfly post, Emmy pointed out the strange timing of the funding council, as its recommendations are due December 1, 2010, four weeks after the gubernatorial election. "If Kasich prevails, it seems unlikely that he'll heed the advice of a panel convened by the previous administration to improve its flagship policy initiative...There is reason to believe that Governor Strickland won't embrace the panel's recommendations either, especially if they call for more resources to be poured into the system." The Council looks to be more about politics than policy and this is unfortunate as Ohio is facing some serious fiscal challenges that need less politics and more problem-solving to have any chance at being dealt with successfully.
———————————————————————————————————————
The U.S. Department of Education's announcement of final priorities for the competitive $4.3 billion Race to the Top (RttT) program has unleashed speculation about Ohio's position in the pack (see here and here). Weighing in on the application details, a spokesperson for Gov. Strickland told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that Ohio is "one of the strongest-positioned states" and that Ohio would score well in "effective teaching and leadership" (the criterion garnering the most points). Fordham's Andy Smarick has noticed that such high expectations have become the trend when various states size up their odds in RttT (see here) even though there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise (see here and here).
As the application deadline draws near, several Ohio lawmakers have introduced bills aimed at bolstering the state's competitiveness for these funds. If awarded RttT dollars, the Buckeye State stands poised to collect between $200 million and $400 million to be used toward K-12 education. Currently there are two sets of competing bills in the legislature.
The first set of companion bills, Senate Bill 180 and House Bill 312, have been introduced by Sen. Jon Husted (R-Kettering) and Rep. Seth Morgan (R-Huber Heights). These bills would allow alumni of the Teach For America program to receive an initial professional educator license, require the use of student performance data in teacher evaluation and licensure, and lift the current moratorium on e-charter schools (see our Senate testimony here).
This proposed legislation would strengthen Ohio's standing in several high-value RttT criteria in which Ohio is lacking (see our analysis of Ohio's competitiveness here). RttT guidelines clearly prescribe that student data inform teacher performance evaluations and licensure decisions. Allowing Teach For America alumni to seek teacher licensure would help satisfy the requirement for alternative paths to licensure that are not heavy on coursework but focus on real performance in real classrooms. Lifting the cap on e-charters would make Ohio seem a little more amenable to successful charter schools (though not by much, considering the otherwise hostile environment charters face, as outlined in our annual charter school sponsorship report).
The second set of legislation, Senate Bill 207 and House Bill 370, sponsored by Sen. Tom Sawyer (D-Akron) and Rep. Jennifer Garrison (D-Marietta), also calls for a removal of the e-charter cap - but not until 2011. This legislation also seeks the creation of a statewide longitudinal data system of student performance. The bills are extensive in specifying what types of data are to be shared between the Ohio Department of Education and Board of Regents.
As it stands, this legislation would have a much smaller impact than SB180/HB 312, as the RttT criteria it addresses are worth far fewer points. Also, the delay in lifting the e-charter cap until well after RttT funds have been distributed may not be interpreted well by the U.S. Department of Education.
These proposals, while well intentioned, are temporary patches that may have come too late. They address only the fringes of education policy in Ohio and do not embody the true spirit of the Race to the Top program -- wholesale, bold, innovative reform.
by Eric Ulas
All-day kindergarten mandate and rating system up for changes
Senate Bill 173, sponsored by Senator Gary Cates (R-West Chester), would delay for one year a major tenet of Governor Strickland's education reform plan and marks the legislature's first attempt to address problems with implementing the mandates in the evidence-based school funding model.
The mandate that districts provide all-day kindergarten -- along with other requirements in House Bill 1 -- would be postponed until the 2011-12 school year under the bill, which was introduced amid concerns that compulsory all-day kindergarten without an adequate infusion of state funding creates an unfunded mandate that would exacerbate financial strains on school districts (see interview above).
SB173 would require districts that choose not to offer all-day kindergarten in 2010-11 to submit a plan explaining how they'll meet the requirement in 2011-12. Without this legislation, districts rated Excellent or Effective by the state can apply to the Ohio Department of Education for waivers to delay the start of all-day kindergarten, though the details of the waiver process have not been finalized and there is no guarantee the education department would approve such requests.
SB 173, which was passed by the Senate education committee, has the support of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA) and the State Board of Education. At its November meeting the board voted 15-1 to pass a resolution expressing support of the bill.
However, soon after meeting with staffers from the governor's office (see here) board president Deborah Cain released a letter attempting to clarify the board's position. Cain said that while she recognizes districts' financial obstacles, she was "concerned that taking a proponent position on Senate Bill 173 does not accurately reflect a majority of the Board's support for all-day, every-day kindergarten."
The Senate education committee also amended Senate Bill 167 (also proposed by Sen. Cates), which deals with the way the state rates school districts. The original bill was intended to tighten up the rating of Continuous Improvement on both ends and thereby make Ohio's academic rating system more meaningful and credible (see our analysis of the original legislation here and here).
In addition to specifying that student sub-groups not making AYP must be the same from year to year for a district to be penalized, Senate Bill 167 sought to minimize a district's fall in the rankings, designating Effective (a "B") as the lowest category for an otherwise high-performing district like Kettering City Schools. At the same time, the bill lowered the worst possible ranking to Academic Watch (a "D") for a district making AYP; districts like Marion City Schools, which met zero of 30 indicators, would no longer get an automatic bump up to "C." Basically, the bill would have assigned more accurate grades to both high-performing districts and low-performing districts and would have enhanced the overall credibility of the academic rating system.
However, in its newly amended version, the bill now only protects high-performing districts not meeting AYP from seeing their rating drop several levels in one year. While this is still good news for districts like Kettering and Lebanon who were catapulted from Excellent with Distinction to Continuous Improvement last year, it fails to address the imprecision of giving a "C" to a district like Marion City Schools that failed to make any academic indicators. In its current form, Senate Bill 167 at best only tinkers with fixing the rating system. The bill will save face for higher-performing districts and lets lawmakers avoid tough decisions about how to fairly rate low-performing school systems. This is a shame and a lost opportunity.
by Emmy L. Partin, Jamie Davies O'Leary, and Eric Ulas
———————————————————————————————————————
Ohio charters told to improve performance while also doing a better job of sharing their successes
Thomas B. Fordham Institute President Chester E. Finn, Jr. believes Ohio charter schools need to further boost academic performance and then do a much better job of telling the public about it.
The two items were on a "to-do" list that Finn ticked off in a speech Nov. 17 at the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools annual meeting in Columbus (read Finn's prepared remarks here).
"Ohio has way too many mediocre or worse charter schools to good ones," he said. Of the 244 charter schools rated by the state last year, 42 were judged "B" or better while 123 were rated "D" or "F."
"Having that many low performers wouldn't be such a problem if there were an equal number of truly strong schools," Finn said. "It's really difficult to say the state has a robust charter program, that it's doing a good job of serving needy kids. Yes, it's got some terrific schools, yet it's really easy for critics to declare the program a failure."
The poor-performers, Finn said, need to be closed or fixed. "Aggressively solving this problem is vital for the future of Ohio's charter movement," he said. Part of the fix may include finding new operators for struggling schools. Charter advocates should encourage the best operators and sponsors to take on more schools. Strong boards are also vital. "We need to recruit talented people to serve on boards and we should be developing a pipeline to recruit and train people for this role," he said.
When they are successful, most charter schools are lousy at trumpeting their achievements. Schools need to reach out to traditional allies, charter parents need to contact lawmakers, and schools need to enlist the help of the broad coalition of pro-choice organizations to generate support among the public and in the Statehouse, he said.
"The state's charters are not doing nearly as good a job reaching out as district superintendents and their allies," Finn said. "Ohioans, including your legislators, know more about various charter blowups in the state rather than the really heartening stories. People don't know nearly enough about the good schools." This is especially troubling in a state with term-limits and a lot of turnover at the statehouse.
"The current governor and his team do not share the pro-charter attitudes of President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan," Finn noted. As an example of how shallow is the support for charters among state officials and policymakers, Finn pointed out that Ohio has been under-spending its federal allocation to help charter-school startups by millions of dollars. "It's a vivid example of how little this state's policymakers are letting national incentives and rewards influence their own actions with respect to the charter sector," he said.
Read Finn's prepared remarks here and watch a short video of the Q&A that followed his speech here.
———————————————————————————————————————
The Secret of TSL: The Revolutionary Discovery that Raises School Performance
William G. Ouchi
Simon & Schuster
2009
U.C.L.A. business professor Bill Ouchi has authored another valuable contribution to the education-reform literature. (We reviewed his last big book, here.) "TSL" stands for "total student load" and refers to the number of students that a teacher is responsible for and also to the number of students in a school. He contends, plausibly enough, that small schools are easier to lead and manage than big ones and that they're more likely to be managed successfully by principals who are competent but not necessarily superstar executives.
He also contends, again plausibly, that a teacher responsible over the course of a day or week for 80 or so students is far more effective with them than one who must contend with twice that number. But this useful book isn't ultimately about class or school size. Befitting a scholar of management, it's really about effective school and district organization. He sets out five "pillars of school empowerment" and "four freedoms" that actually give principals the capacity to lead their schools. Along the way, he does an admirable job of explaining how districts should be decentralized and why they work better when they are.
Taken seriously, Ouchi's analysis would do important good for American K-12 education, particularly in big cities and large districts. It's not the whole story, however. Important as it is, for example, for schools to control their curriculum, that doesn't get us very far if it's a loopy, flabby, trendy or ineffectual curriculum, or one taught by instructors who don't know their stuff. Nor must one buy Ouchi's assumption that districts are forever.
Is it not possible that the geographically-based district itself is an obsolete management structure and that U.S. education would be better off with a direct relationship between states and a host of fully empowered charter-like schools, CMOs, EMOs, and other operators, some of them virtual, some of them national? Still, as long as we have the structure we have, wise policymakers and state and district leaders would do well to heed Bill Ouchi's findings and sage advice. You can find the book here.
How Bold is Bold? Responding to Race to the Top with a Bold, Actionable Plan on Teacher Effectiveness
The New Teacher Project
November 2009
Anyone curious whether Ohio will win a $200-400 million share should read The New Teacher Project's recently released national report, purportedly a "blueprint" for states hoping to win a piece of the federal grant money: How Bold is Bold? Responding to Race to the Top with a Bold, Actionable Plan on Teacher Effectiveness. The report outlines components of a "bold" application, suggests appropriate roles for states and LEAs, and lists five goals a state should pursue to have a coherent plan for improving teacher quality (rather than a "series of disjointed initiatives"):
1) optimize new teacher supply,
2) boost effectiveness of all teachers,
3) retain and leverage most effective teachers,
4) prioritize effective teachers for high-need students, and
5) improve or exit persistently less effective teachers.
While Ohio aligns with a few of TNTP's recommended components, such as modifying "tenure policies to provide grounds for termination" (House Bill l lowered Ohio's teacher dismissal standards), the report makes several recommendations that conflict with current Ohio law and contradict the viewpoints of current state leadership: requiring that student achievement growth be predominant in teacher evaluations; basing compensation models on teacher performance; and holding teacher preparation programs accountable by linking student achievement data to the teachers they graduate.
Unsurprisingly, the goals derived from TNTP's analysis of the Race to the Top application emulate those found in the new Cincinnati report (see above article). TNTP delivers the same message to client school districts as it does to states and to the federal government: improving teacher effectiveness is the lynchpin for closing the achievement gap, and can only happen through a strategic and coordinated overhaul of several policies at once. Read it here.
———————————————————————————————————————
Flypaper's Finest
A selection of the best offerings from Flypaper, Fordham's blog.
Racing to the Top in a time of fiscal peril, by Terry Ryan
I've just finished reading the Race to the Top program executive summary released by the U.S. Department of Education last week and while there is much in it to excite reformers there seems to be a serious disconnect between its ambition and states' capability to actually deliver on reforms, given the grim fiscal realities they are facing. Read the full post here.
Camping out for school choice, by Jamie Davies O'Leary
...Shoppers across the nation will prepare for the madness known as Black Friday. This week the Cincinnati Enquirer highlighted another unique American phenomenon involving long lines and midnight campers - parents lining up as far as two and a half days in advance in order to win their child a spot in one of the city's elite public magnet schools. Read the full post here.
————————————————————————————————————————The first chart in the email version of our November 30 Special Ohio Education Gadfly had one mislabeled data point. The correct chart is available online 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.
