Here in the policy world—as we prepare legislative testimony, author white papers, commission research studies, draft blog posts, prepare for meetings, and do additional, far more mundane work—we often say to ourselves, “Didn’t I just do this the other day?” Likely we mean, didn’t I just advocate for this the other month or year. We repeat, and repeat, and repeat, our messages. To observers, we might be a broken record. And we are—with good reason.
Consider this example from education policy: Ohio’s State Board of Education adopted the Common Core State Standards in June 2010. Today, two-and-a-half years later, how many of those members still serve on the board? Five. Out of 19. What about the General Assembly? How many of those members were serving during Ohio’s eight-month debate over adopting the Common Core standards? Fifty-two percent (or 69 members).
Since the state adopted the Common Core standards, Fordham-Ohio has produced multiple reports on the topic, convened three major events about the standards, and written more than fifty articles on our blog and in our e-newsletter. (To say nothing of the numerous conversations we have with lawmakers, State Board of Education members, reporters, and business/education/community leaders.) This ongoing and, yes, repetitive work serves a purpose: to help new policymakers, education leaders, and the public engaged in and understanding of important issues facing our state’s schools. As policy advocates we have to keep this in mind, and learn to be okay with sounding
When then-Governor Ted Strickland issued his Evidence-Based Model (EBM) of school funding reform in 2009 we engaged Professor Paul Hill to provide an analysis of the proposals. We couldn’t think of anyone better to do the work than Professor Hill. His credentials are impeccable. He is founder and recently retired director of the University of Washington’s Center on Reinventing Public Education, and a former Senior Fellow at Brookings and RAND. Further, Professor Hill has roots in Ohio as a graduate of Ohio State University. He also has family in Dayton.
Professor Hill’s analysis of Strickland’s plan was largely informed by the research project he led, Facing the Future: Financing Productive Schools. That six-year effort, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was the most comprehensive study of its kind ever conducted. It concluded that America’s public-school finance systems are burdened by rules and narrow policies that hold local officials accountable for compliance but not for results. Facing the Future was the work of more than 40 economists, lawyers, financial specialists, and education policy makers. It included more than 30 separate studies, including in-depth looks at Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington.
Based on findings and recommendations from Facing the Future we asked Professor Hill to develop a “crosswalk” between the key findings of that seminal report and the policy recommendations in the Strickland’s Plan. Professor Hill’s analysis of Governor Strickland’s
Dayton panelists from left: Bob Taft, Rusty Clifford and Lori Ward
The word churn is used within a variety of industries. Just as customers leave businesses and migrate to competitors for other products or pricing options, students transfer between school districts and buildings. Churn is a reality within Ohio schools. But what are the reasons for this cycle? School leaders, parents, community members and others gathered yesterday in Dayton and Cincinnati to discuss student churn, what it means for their schools and what might be done about it. A crowd of about 100 gathered for each event.
In November, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Columbus-based Community Research Partners (CRP), and nine other funders released a statewide study of student mobility in Ohio. This substantial report was the basis of the conversations hosted by Learn to Earn in Dayton and The Strive Partnership in Cincinnati.
“Today’s event in Dayton was very eye opening,” said Chatoya Hayes, an audience member who joined the discussion from the United Way of the Greater Dayton Area. “I think the issue of student mobility is directly altering student success and is a major factor not usually considered.” Hayes said she found the comparisons between Dayton and other districts in Ohio to be especially beneficial to the thinking of audience members. Churn within schools can be associated with a variety of factors, whether academic,
My son is a student in the Columbus City School District. Thus, what transpires per education in Ohio’s largest district impacts me personally, not just professionally. Last evening I was pleased on both fronts by Mayor Michael Coleman’s State of the City address. It was his 14th such speech but it was a “first” in one regard: Coleman tackled the issue of improving public schools in his city head-on. This speech comes as the mayor’s education commission is meeting regularly to develop a plan to help right the city’s schools. (Terry and Ethan Gray from CEE-Trust presented to the committee just a few days ago). Terry's presentation can be viewed here and Ethan's can be viewed here.
The entire speech was promising and demonstrated the mayor’s strong intent to provide better education options to his city’s children. Perhaps most striking, though, was his unabashed support for good charter schools (which is rare from an Ohio Democrat—though we’ve seen tides shift among other urban Dems). Here is the charter school portion of the speech:
And finally: Every child deserves to go to a good school, and the schools that consistently fail our children must be replaced.
Unfortunately we don’t have enough good schools in Columbus. When you combine Columbus City Schools and charter schools, only five percent of schools earn an A rating. That means only 2,800 of 65,000 students go to excellent schools. Meanwhile,