THE
OHIO EDUCATION GADFLY
A Bi-Weekly Bulletin of News and
Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Volume 3, Number 28. September 30, 2009
————————————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————————————
Getting academic standards right in the Buckeye State
What, exactly, will Ohio use for academic content standards for its students, schools, and teachers, and how, exactly, will the state hold them to account for results? Getting the standards right -- specifying the knowledge and skills that teachers should teach and children should learn -- is at the heart of just about everything else that matters in K-12 education.
Or, as the American Federation of Teachers has observed, "abundant evidence suggests that common, rigorous standards lead to more students reaching higher levels of student achievement" (see here).
In short, standards wield significant influence over what happens inside classrooms.
The issue of creating and implementing great academic standards is a nonpartisan issue and it is critical to the future of Ohio, its schools, and its children. That's why the Thomas B. Fordham Institute has partnered with Ohio Grantmakers Forum, KidsOhio.org, Ohio Education Matters, the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools, and the Ohio Business Alliance for Higher Education and the Economy to convene and host (with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) the conference "World-Class Academic Standards for Ohio."
The time for such a conversation is now. Under recent changes to state law the State Board of Education is charged with revising and updating its statewide academic standards for K-12 in English language arts, math, science, and social studies by June 30, 2010. Further, the Buckeye State is one of 51 states and territories involved in the process to develop national education standards in math and reading "that define the knowledge and skills students should have to succeed in entry-level college courses and workforce training programs" (see here).
This partnership with other states and national groups is exciting because working in isolation most states have bungled the effort of creating anything close to "world-class" standards. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation reported in 2006 that the average grade for state standards across all subjects was a "C-minus." Ohio's grade was even worse at a "D-plus."
Creating great standards is a complex, time-consuming, and costly effort. Most states have struggled to do it well because they have too often deployed armies of stakeholders rather than trusting subject-matter experts and practiced standards-writers. This process has resulted in standards that are "a mile wide and an inch deep." Subsequently, most state standards have lacked clarity, specificity, and rigor.
In hopes of doing better, lawmakers, state and national education leaders and standards experts will gather in Columbus on October 5 to discuss national efforts to create common core standards in English language arts and mathematics for grades K-12 and to explain what these efforts might mean for Ohio and its children, its educators, and its schools. How might this national effort fit into Ohio's new legislative mandate to improve its academic standards and assessments? What does it mean for a state to opt into these efforts? And what are the challenges/problems facing these national efforts?
To answer these questions and others, we will ask the leaders (Gene Wilhoit, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers --, and Michael Cohen, president of Achieve Inc.) of two of the organizations that just released the first official draft of college- and career-readiness standards (see here). Chester E. Finn, Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, told The Washington Post when asked about this effort, "We have now a public working draft of what could be the beginnings of national standards for K through 12 education. That's potentially a very big deal" (see here). Finn will moderate the Cohen-Wilhoit panel.
To get at state-specific questions (like, How have top-performing states created their standards and assessment systems? How do states with highly regarded standards balance traditional content, basic skills and "21st Century" Skills? And, is there a role for higher education in these efforts?), we have asked three national experts to join us (David Driscoll, former Massachusetts commissioner of education; Stan Jones, former Indiana higher education commissioner; and Sue Pimentel, co-founder of StandardsWork). Bruno Manno of the Annie E. Casey Foundation will lead this conversation.
Finally, what do these national and state efforts mean for Ohio as it redesigns it standards and how can we best move forward? Ohio's top education policy makers will get at this and other related questions (like, Can "common national standards" even fly in Ohio? And what are the main challenges facing the state's efforts to date?). State Superintendent Deborah Delisle and Board of Regents Chancellor Eric Fingerhut will share their insights and views. These state leaders will be joined by Gene Harris, superintendent of Columbus City Schools, and Jim Mahoney, executive director of Battelle for Kids. Former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige will moderate this panel.
Throughout the event others will provide important context and commentary, including State Representative Stephen Dyer, State Senator Jon Husted, and KidsOhio.org President and CEO Mark Real.
Ohio, and indeed the country, is at a pivotal moment in the development of standards-based education. We are fortunate to have some of the best thinkers and doers on the issue visiting Ohio to discuss with the state's policy makers how the Buckeye State can be a leader in this effort.
For more information about the conference, contact Emmy Partin at [email protected] or 614-223-1580.
by Terry Ryan
———————————————————————————————————————
Could education tax credits help alleviate school funding woes?
The justification behind tax credits is straightforward -- to stimulate investment in a particular area by providing incentives that reduce the tax liability of individuals and/or corporations. Traditionally, tax credits have played a valuable role in industries that lack market momentum (think, the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit, or the Film Tax Credit for Ohio), often receiving bipartisan support and flying below the radar. Let's face it: fixing historical buildings and promoting the film industry are not rife with contention.
But some tax credit advocates argue for their use in K-12 education as a tool to help families exercise school choice and save taxpayer dollars. There is no doubt that applying tax credits to K-12 education in the Buckeye State would create a stir (especially if it were to cost $120 million or $30 million, as Ohio's Historic Preservation or Film Tax Credits cost, respectively). But considering the current condition of the state's K-12 budget, the role played by tax credits -- to spur much-need investment -- is one that increasingly is worth examining.
With the Ohio Supreme Court ruling that Gov. Strickland's slot machine plan is subject to voter approval, his school funding plan is short nearly $1 billion. Strickland has admitted his exasperation with the situation, telling the Dayton Daily News, "I'm hoping we can find [another] option. If you think of one overnight, write it down."
Gov. Strickland isn't the only one doing a double-take at the state's balance sheets. Even before the billion-dollar hole crystallized, Ohio school districts and charter schools were facing excruciating cuts and had opted to lay off staff, cut busing services, and -- as South-Western Schools have done -- cancel all extracurricular programming for middle- and high-school students. Enter the concept of education tax credits.
In Arizona, individuals may claim a credit for donating money to public schools for extracurricular programs. At minimum, this version of a tax credit program could ameliorate some Ohio districts' pain. For those more sympathetic to funding private schools, now's the time for that, too. Ohio's new budget bill cuts $59 million from "auxiliary services" for children attending nonpublic schools. The families of these 190,000 children would presumably support a tax credit program that could compensate for these brutal funding cuts.
Several states, including Arizona, Florida, and Pennsylvania, have implemented tax credit scholarship programs. Other states combine tax credit programs with opportunities for personal tax deductions (Minnesota, Iowa, and Georgia) and many others have considered variations of these programs. Given the growing popularity of tax credits as school choice vehicle, and their potential to save Ohio taxpayers money (see here for a report examining the fiscal effects of tax credit programs), it's worthwhile to review educational tax credits and deductions, and some political arguments for them.
An educational tax credit is a "direct reduction in tax liability for educational expenditures such as tutoring, books, computers, and, in some states, private school tuition. State legislation determines the amount of credit and which educational expenses qualify.
In some states, families with no tax liability may receive a refund for some or all of the amount spent on qualifying educational expenses" (to learn more, see here ). States can allow individuals and/or corporations to receive tax credits (for example, Arizona's program allows individuals to receive a dollar-for-dollar credit of up to $625 for donations; Florida's enables corporations to contribute up to 75 percent of the amount of their tax). Donations are maintained through a school tuition organization (also known as a scholarship granting organization), which uses its own criteria for distributing scholarship funds to eligible students.
An educational tax deduction "allows for certain educational expenses to be deducted from taxable income prior to the calculation of tax liability. A tax deduction offsets a portion of the cost of qualifying educational expenses, depending on the percentage tax bracket an individual is in. A family with no tax liability will receive no benefits from this type of program" (to learn more, see here ). For example, Illinois gives families a tax break of up to $500 to cover education expenses for public or private school.
Proponents of education tax programs realize they have several advantages over vouchers. Because they are funded privately rather than through government coffers, such programs are less likely to be challenged in court, less susceptible to burdensome regulation, and more popular among the general public and politicians (to read a full argument for public education tax credits, see here).
In fact, a May 2009 survey by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice found that a majority of respondents (54 percent) favored tax credits for individuals and businesses funding private school scholarships. This is twice the number of those who prefer charter schools (27 percent), and nearly the same amount favoring vouchers (55 percent). For a full version of the Friedman survey, "Ohio's Opinion on K-12 Education and School Choice," see here.
Should Ohio explore tax credits as a vehicle for school choice, choice opponents will certainly find reasons to attack it. But with Ohio schools facing severe fiscal pain, education tax credit programs are worth a serious debate.
———————————————————————————————————————
Inspired by the "Graph of the Week" offered up by our friends at the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio, we'll be rolling out regular graphics on the Flypaper blog to illustrate interesting trends and facts about public education, especially as they relate to Fordham's home state of Ohio. Check out our first "Did you know?" post here.
Pity those who have to implement accountability systems for 21st century skills, by Terry Ryan
There has been much ink spent on the debate around 21st century skills. The eminent historian Diane Ravitch has rightly blasted 21st century skills as a fad with lineage that can be traced back to at least the early part of the 20th century... Pity the officials at state education departments facing legislative mandates to come up with criteria for measuring and determining whether students, or groups of students, have actually acquired these skills. Imagine a young person in 2014 not receiving a high school diploma because they have been deemed as not having the "personal management skills such as self-direction, time management, work ethic, enthusiasm and the desire to produce a high quality product." This is a lawsuit simply waiting to happen. Read the post here.
———————————————————————————————————————
Ohio retirement study council member explains crisis facing state retirement systems
Fordham has had a keen interest in STRS since 2007. We frankly were not surprised last month when it came out that the STRS was facing serious funding shortfalls. As we have worked hard to better understand this issue and talk thoughtfully about it, we reached out to experts in Ohio and beyond.
One of the most thoughtful people in the Buckeye State on this now is Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, who also happens to sit on the State Retirement Study Council. His perspective and insights on the challenges facing the STRS and the state's four other retirement systems are important for all who worry about these systems' sustainability and their impact on things like new talent recruitment.
Mike Lafferty recently sat down with him to discuss his perspective on the STRS and retirement systems in the state of Ohio. View the interview here.
———————————————————————————————————————
The Pursuit of High Quality Schools: A Progress Report on Ohio's Quest to Graduate More Students Ready for College and Career
Ohio Education Matters
August 2009
This report by Ohio Education Matters (OEM) analyzes the Buckeye State's efforts over the past five years to address its prodigious high school dropout rate. In late 2004, the graduation and dropout rates in Ohio reached such a point that the State Board of Education's Task Force on Quality High Schools moved to action, proposing systemic changes to combat the problem. Five years later, however, there has been little progress and the problem has worsened: the state's average graduation rate dropped from 86.62 percent in 2004 to 84.2 percent in 2008.
OEM disaggregates dropout data to examine the drop-out problem more closely. The report examines high schools statewide, specifically the 30 with the lowest graduation rates. Most of the conclusions drawn from this data are obvious and have been long-known. For example, the finding that the heart of Ohio's dropout problem lies in the urban core is not a new one. However, the report draws two hopeful conclusions.
First, thatschools with the highest dropout rates made above average progress in graduating students. Additionally, a few of the worst case schools were able to make significant improvements. The report also examines current strategies to address dropout rates and finds that a number of programs, such as the Initiative for Increasing the Graduation Rate, hold promise or have already begun to yield positive results.
Overall this report is a comprehensive survey of Ohio's progress toward improving graduation rates. It proposes several common-sense solutions, but nothing particularly new or bold. One thing the report does well is highlight the significant economic and social costs Ohio will pay in the future if it does not take significant action to successfully address this problem. Read it here.
by Eric Ulas
Scrambling the Nest Egg: How well do teachers understand their pensions and what do they think about alternative pension structures?
Michael DeArmond & Dan Golhaber
National Center on Performance Incentives
February 2009
Though released last winter, this report from the National Center on Performance Incentives is especially timely for the state of Ohio, where the State Retirement Teacher System (STRS) is facing serious fiscal liabilities and skepticism from lawmakers (see video above). "Scrambling the Nest Egg" uses 2006 survey data from Washington state to explore: 1) How well do teachers understand their pension plans and 2) What do they think about alternative retirement plan structures?
The authors link survey results (to what extent teachers understand their pensions, and what type they say they prefer) to school and district characteristics. They found that teachers are fairly knowledgeable when it comes to their pension plan, although new teachers appear less knowledgeable than veterans. The data also reveal that teachers show a preference for investing additional retirement savings in alternative plan structures, such as defined-contribution (DC) plans, which offer more portability, choice, and risk than more traditional defined-benefit (DB) plans. Moreover, newer teachers are far more likely to favor DC contribution systems than DB plans.
The answers to the questions sought out by this report are critical because pension structure can support (or hinder) effective staffing by informing who decides to teach, when they teach, and where they teach. Under current DB plans participants are eligible to receive benefits only when they have taught in their state long enough to become vested (usually after five years), which encourages longevity, but discourages people from becoming teachers if they plan on changing careers or moving out of state.
DC plans, on the other hand, could attract new teachers because these arrangements do not penalize people who leave the system early or move between jobs. Also, DC plans do not create sharp incentives for teachers to retire at a particular time or age, which could help retain effective veteran teachers who, otherwise, may be encouraged to retire while still in their early to mid fifties.
Ohio lawmakers should pay attention to the results found in this report, and consider moving toward a DC teacher pension system. Not only would a portable pension system help recruit promising teachers to the profession and minimize the perverse incentives of the current setup (see Fordham's report on incentives here), but it is a reasonable solution when the current STRS is facing financial instability. See the report here.
Matchmaking: Enabling Mandatory Public School Choice in New York and Boston
Thomas Toch & Chad Aldeman
Education Sector
September 2009
Mandatory public choice -- the practice of a school district requiring students to select a school rather than be automatically assigned to one -- has shown to foster innovation in public schools if joined with an effective placement system, according to this report from Education Sector. The report chronicles the evolution and success of New York's and Boston's unique systems of public school choice, both of which were stymied by logistical hurdles and ineffective methods of placing students in the schools they want.
The districts consulted with experts in matching systems to develop highly successful placement programs. As a result, more students were able to get into the school of their choice, which in turn increased competition among schools. The report's extensive explanation of the matching methodologies could be useful to Ohio districts seeking to create or improve their magnet and school-choice lottery processes (while most of Ohio's major urban districts have growing magnet school sectors, only Dayton and Cincinnati have any version of mandatory school choice). Such mandatory choice programs have yet to show any significant impact on achievement, but they lay a solid foundation for increased competition and innovation among public schools and can provide a valuable complement to charter schools and voucher programs. Check out the full report 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.