Ohio Education Gadfly
Volume 1, Number 35
May 30, 2007
Editorial
Ohioans Speak Out: Are Their Elected Officials Listening?
By
Quentin Suffren
,
Terry Ryan
Guest Editorial
The Funding Gap: How Michigan Charter School Students Get Shortchanged
By
James A. Williams
Recommended Reading
Back to Basics
Capital Matters
Beyond Tinkering
By
Quentin Suffren
Announcements
Growth Pilot Cleared for Takeoff
Ohioans Speak Out: Are Their Elected Officials Listening?
Quentin Suffren , Terry Ryan / May 30, 2007
Last week, Fordham and the FDR Group, a respected national survey research organization, released "Ohioans' Views on Education 2007"--a revealing look into the attitudes of Buckeye residents on a host of pressing education issues at the state and federal level. The findings suggest that Governor Strickland and those who share his education policy preferences are, for the most part, out of step with rank-and-file voters, taxpayers and parents.
Consider the divide on three core issues:
Standards and Accountability. On the issue of accountability and testing--two fundamental elements of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act--Ohioans broadly support setting standards and holding students to them. That includes the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT). In spite of recent hand-wringing and protests by students and some parents over the stricter requirements to pass the OGT (see here), most Ohioans (66 percent) strongly favor it. Indeed, a full 89 percent of those favoring the OGT requirement would still support it even if it meant that their own child would be denied a diploma.
Yet Governor Strickland has cited NCLB's testing measures as one reason that, given the chance to relive history, he would vote against the federal bill (as a U.S. Representative in 2001, he supported it.) "I think the well-intentioned emphasis on standardized testing is presenting the danger of us trying to squeeze all students into a single mold, having a single outcome," Strickland noted. If that outcome is, at the very
Ohioans Speak Out: Are Their Elected Officials Listening?
The Funding Gap: How Michigan Charter School Students Get Shortchanged
James A. Williams / May 30, 2007
From time to time, we feature analysis of education reform issues in other states--in this case, Michigan. Below, James Goenner and Don Cooper of the Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University, which authorizes (i.e., sponsors) 58 charters in the Great Lakes State, reveal that the charter school funding gap isn't just a problem for Ohio's charters.
___________________________________________________________
Central Michigan University's (CMU's) involvement with public charter schools began in 1994 when we became the first university in America to charter a school, expanding on a tradition of leadership that began in the late 1800s when CMU educated its first public school teachers.
CMU got involved because we believed charter schools would serve as a catalyst to advance public education and benefit all Michigan school children. Today, we are the largest university authorizer of charters in the country, chartering 58 schools that serve nearly 30,000 students.
After reading the groundbreaking report Charter School Funding: Inequity's Next Frontier, published by The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, we decided to examine the size of the funding gap between students who attend the public schools we charter and those attending conventional district schools. As the report rightly noted, the issue of equitable school funding has been debated and litigated for decades. Overall, progress has been made, yet there is no doubt that more can be done.
For years, funding equity advocates have rightly argued that all children have the right to a quality education.
The Funding Gap: How Michigan Charter School Students Get Shortchanged
Back to Basics
May 30, 2007
Ever wonder what separates a charter school sponsor (aka authorizer) from a non-profit governing board? A charter management organization (CMO) from an education management organization (EMO)? With so many characters treading the boards of Ohio's charter school stage, even Gadfly needs a little help keeping them all straight (that's when they're not blurring their roles on their own). To that end, readers may want to check out a brief summary of Ohio's charter school governance structure and those organizations that play key roles within it. It's available here.
Back to Basics
Beyond Tinkering
Quentin Suffren / May 30, 2007
A frank and at times sobering discussion about the future of Ohio's education system drew a host of concerned educators, philanthropists and policymakers to Columbus last week. "Beyond Tinkering: A Conversation about Education and Ohio's Economic Future" was hosted by the Ohio Grantmakers Forum, the Ohio Business Roundtable and the Policy Innovation in Education Network (PIE Net), of which Fordham is a part.
The day-long seminar featured remarks by the governor and a panel of legislative leaders--including Speaker Jon Husted and Senate President Bill Harris. And while each had his/her priorities (extended school day/calendar for Governor Strickland, STEM for Husted, and fewer charters for minority leaders Teresa Fedor and Joyce Beatty), there was unanimity in their message: The state's education system, while improving, is in need of serious reform if Ohio's citizens and its economy are to compete and prosper in the global marketplace.
How drastic a reform? The most radical vision belonged to Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). Citing the report Tough Choices or Tough Times by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, Tucker rendered a compelling argument for top-to-bottom reconstruction of the schooling enterprise.
In lieu of the current system, he and the New Commission envision a more efficient, streamlined replacement--one that would, among other things,
- "graduate" students at age sixteen so they can enter college-credit course programs such as Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate,
Beyond Tinkering
Growth Pilot Cleared for Takeoff
May 30, 2007
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) recently approved Ohio's growth model pilot (conditionally, at least) for use in the 2006-07 school year--clearing the way for the state's new value-added assessment program (see here ) to take effect in 2007-08. Under the program, student progress on state-mandated assessments can be tracked over time and the results factored into school and district school ratings. The DOE press release can be found here.





