National education leaders speak to the Ohio Senate Finance Committee

Jamie Davies O'Leary / May 25, 2011

Last week, Indiana State Superintendent Tony Bennett and former Commissioner of Education for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and the Fordham Institute’s Ohio committee chair) David Driscoll spoke to the Ohio Senate Finance Committee about education reforms in their respective states.

The Buckeye State is in the midst of its biennial budget debate, and with the budget bill now on the Senate table, state senators were eager to hear from two leading education practitioners who’ve traveled the road to reform before. And that road is a rough one; neither Bennett nor Driscoll minced words about Ohio’s financial challenges, the pushback lawmakers and policymakers will receive along the way, and the difficulty of achieving and sustaining comprehensive, statewide reform.

The good news for Ohio is that we’re not alone in pursuing bold reforms such as those embedded in HB 153. Bennett’s and Driscoll’s testimonies reaffirmed that the state is on the right track when it comes to school reform.

Bennett conveyed a sense of urgency around his agenda in Indiana, and much of what he described about the Hoosier State’s comprehensive education reform package sounds very similar to what has been proposed or is already in place in Ohio:

• a value-added growth model, and A-F letter grades for schools;
• plans to revamp the lowest one percent of district schools (though Ohio is proposing reconstituting or closing the lowest five percent);
• a move toward lifting caps on charter schools and expanding choice through a tax credit scholarship;
• a move away

  » Continued

  ---

  National education leaders speak to the Ohio Senate Finance Committee

National charter school experts implore Ohio Senate to fix charter provisions in state budget bill

Emmy L. Partin / May 25, 2011

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers have joined the chorus of charter school advocates and others who are calling for the Ohio Senate to fix the charter provisions of HB 153 as passed by the Ohio House.

In a joint letter to Senate Finance Committee chair Sen. Chris Widener, Peter Groff and Greg Richmond, presidents of NAPCS and NACSA, respectively, say:

Many of the provisions in HB 153 contradict the charter school model, thwart efforts to strengthen charter school accountability and quality, and will ultimately undermine popular support for Ohio’s community schools.  As passed by the Ohio House, the charter provisions of HB 153 represent a significant risk for Ohio’s community school sector.

They go on to explain their opposition to the House changes in detail and offer up recommendations for how the Senate can improve HB 153’s charter provisions.  Many of these recommendations echo the 2006 report Turning the Corner to Quality: Policy Guidelines for Strengthening Ohio’s Charter Schools, which was issued jointly by NAPCS, NACSA, and the Fordham Institute. They include:

• Removing the ability of schools to seek direct authorization from the Ohio Department of Education, and strengthening the department’s oversight of current and future charter sponsors;

• Guaranteeing school governing boards are independent and have control over the operators they hire, and strengthening ethics and transparency rules;

• Eliminating the provision that allows for-profit entities to become governing bodies;

• Providing greater funding equity and access to facilities for charter schools; and

• Promoting the replication of high-performing charter schools.

Read the letter in full here.

» Continued

National charter school experts implore Ohio Senate to fix charter provisions in state budget bill

Cincinnati teacher evaluation system shows promise

May 25, 2011

After two years of development, Cincinnati Public Schools recently revealed its new teacher evaluation system, which ties teacher pay to student performance. The new system, reportedly the first of its kind in the Buckeye State, will evaluate teachers on measures of student growth as well as things like integrating technology in the classroom and classroom management. CPS’s evaluation system comes ahead of many state and federal efforts to improve how teachers’ job performance is judged. The state’s biennial budget, Senate Bill 5 (Ohio’s collective bargaining reform law), and the federal Race to the Top program will require districts to implement teacher evaluations that link teacher pay to student achievement in some fashion.

Cincinnati’s new evaluation system incorporates three separate components at various intervals in a teacher’s career: annual evaluations, performance evaluations, and comprehensive evaluations.

 Annual Evaluations

At the beginning of the school year teachers participate in a conference with their principal to discuss priorities for the coming school year. As a product of the conference two goals are identified from a predetermined list, and teachers must focus on their goals during the year. At least one of the goals must be related to improving student achievement data. At the end of the school year, the goals are scored as either having been exceeded, met, or not met. The annual evaluations also include a checklist of professional responsibilities, such as timely grading, evidence of lesson planning, and indicators of professionalism like arriving to work on time. The checklist is completed by the principal at the conclusion of the school year. One unannounced classroom observation makes up the

» Continued

Cincinnati teacher evaluation system shows promise

Ohio's biennial budget: What the Senate should keep, fix, and scrap

Chester E. Finn, Jr. , Emmy L. Partin , Terry Ryan , Jamie Davies O'Leary / May 25, 2011

The Ohio Senate will unveil its version of the state’s biennial operating budget early next month. As we – and others – have made clear in many venues, the members of that body have their work cut out for them when it comes to the charter-school provisions inserted by the Ohio House.

Governor Kasich’s original version of the budget sought to find a balance between expanding school choice and ensuring that schools of choice are held accountable for their students’ performance. For instance, it expanded the state’s EdChoice voucher program to provide immediate education options to more students who would otherwise attend failing public schools. It also imposed a “smart” cap on charter authorizers while removing other barriers to opening new schools. In marked contrast, the House version significantly diminishes charter school accountability and basically empowers school operators as the functional equivalent of private schools unburdened by state rules and accountability requirements.

But that’s just one small piece of a big story. Amid the clamor over the charter provisions, too little attention has been paid—or applause offered—for the many terrific features wrought by the governor and/or the House. In several key areas, the House built on the solid foundation laid out by Governor Kasich, upholding his dual goals of improving education in the Buckeye State while helping schools and districts adjust to doing more with less. Without raising taxes, the governor and House have proposed a balanced budget that would free schools to manage their resources at a time when those resources are diminished.

For example,

» Continued

Ohio's biennial budget: What the Senate should keep, fix, and scrap

An honest look at Ohio's e-schools

Emmy L. Partin / May 25, 2011

“Our blog tough on OH e-schools; Innovation OH report=misleading hit job” – that’s how Bill Tucker, managing director of Education Sector, a nonpartisan education policy think tank based in Washington, D.C., contrasted his organization’s recent blog series about Ohio’s e-schools with an e-school report from Innovation Ohio, a new Ohio-based public policy organization. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

This contrast is important, especially because at face value both analyses seem to land on similar ground.

Ed Sector wrapped up its blog series by saying:

As online learning continues to grow and expand in ways that we may not even be able to envision, strong oversight to ensure both high quality learning experiences and accountability for public funds are essential.

Innovation Ohio says in its report:

…it is critical that legislators see to it that public money is spent wisely and not wasted on “alternatives” that deliver even worse results than the traditional schools they were designed to supersede. In the absence of strict accountability and oversight, e-schools can be a cruel hoax on the children, parents, and taxpayers who were counting on them.

The similarities end there.

From May 2 to 12, Education Sector lifted up data and information about Ohio’s e-schools on its blog, The Quick and the Ed, concluding with a few policy lessons. The Fordham Institute has long analyzed the performance of Ohio’s e-schools as a sector in our annual local report card analysis (see last year’s analysis here), but Ed Sector’s blog series broke new ground in how it disaggregated and presented e-school data. Tucker and his colleagues shared

» Continued

An honest look at Ohio's e-schools

Beyond Good and Evil: Understanding the Role of For-Profits in Education through the Theories of Disruptive Innovation

Nick Joch / May 25, 2011

The debate surrounding for-profit corporations in education is often highly polarized (especially in Ohio): For-profits are cast as either heroes or villains, but seldom anywhere in between. In the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) latest report, Michael B. Horn articulates a more nuanced role for for-profits in education.

Horn analyzes at an abstract level the differences between non-profits and for-profits in the areas of scale, focus, and “what opportunities appear attractive.” He posits that for-profits are able to scale their operations quickly and effectively because of a clear focus (turning a profit by providing a high-quality good or service to the corporation’s best customers), and that they are inherently driven to pursue opportunities that maximize profit. Although they are often slower to adapt to market conditions and have more difficulty maintaining a clear organizational focus than their for-profit cousins, non-profits are able to remain in markets where profit opportunities are smaller and fewer.

Horn claims that the for-profit model makes it suited for specific, but not all, ends in education. He focuses on online education and asserts that if proper regulations are put in place, for-profit corporations can be the most efficient vehicles for obtaining high-quality outcomes for students in certain situations. (Unfortunately, Horn does not discuss for-profit charter school operators, a hot issue in Ohio of late.) For-profits tend to innovate and expand in the direction that will appeal most to the consumer. This can work to the advantage of students if the government (the “consumer” for public education) implements regulations and incentives that encourage for-profits to pursue educational goals established in legislation.

» Continued

Beyond Good and Evil: Understanding the Role of For-Profits in Education through the Theories of Disruptive Innovation

Slow off the Mark: Elementary School Teachers and the Crisis in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education

May 25, 2011

If one ever doubted the need to improve science and math education in this country, performance on international tests should be motivation enough. On the 2009 PISA mathematics exam, 17 countries scored higher than the US and 12 scored higher than the US in science. This report by the Center for American Progress argues that if the US is going to be a leader in STEM it must dramatically improve the selection and training of elementary STEM teachers, especially in the areas of:

• Selection requirements. A recent study by the National Council on Teacher Quality sampled 77 education schools and found that a majority of schools only require education school students to have a basic understanding of math concepts.
• Preparation. Course requirements in teacher preparedness programs are generally weak and inconsistent from state to state. Only 25 percent of future US teachers take a two-course calculus sequence, compared to 63 percent in Switzerland.
• Licensure Requirements. In most states teachers can pass the state licensure exam without passing the math portion of the test.  The math portion either does not count toward whether someone passes or fails or they do not report it -- both potentially equally damaging to the students they will teach.

The situation in science is even more troubling. Science is often overlooked and scores are often not considered in education school admission requirements. Perhaps the most telling data comes from a 2000 “National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education.” The study randomly looked at 655 elementary science teachers in grades K-5 and concluded that only four percent of these teachers

» Continued

Slow off the Mark: Elementary School Teachers and the Crisis in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education

The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning: Profiles of emerging models

Gerilyn Slicker / May 25, 2011

Four months ago, Michael Horn and Heather Staker released a white paper, “The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning.” In it, they warned policymakers of the need to support blended learning—education that splits students’ time between the teacher-led classroom and the digital realm—lest it get stymied by current statutes around seat time, class sizes, life-long teacher contracts, etc. This follow-up paper profiles forty organizations engaged in blended learning of some sort, offering specifics to readers seeking a clearer picture of what blended learning actually looks like for the student and teacher. Along with this framing, the paper offers some smart, concrete policy recommendations to push for easier expansion of the blended-education approach. Some have been voiced in other reformer circles—things like relaxing “highly qualified teacher” mandates (to bring content experts into online classrooms) and completing the transition to the Common Core (to avoid tension between them and state standards). Others are out-of-the-box, but merit serious consideration. For example: those programs able to educate students for less money than the state allotment should be allowed to bank the extra funds in education savings accounts, from which students may pull to pay for tutoring, college tuition, and the like. As blended-learning policy and understanding begin to take shape, this paper—and the original in the series—do well to frame the issue.

The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning: Profiles of emerging models
Innosight Institute
Heather Staker
May 2011

» Continued

The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning: Profiles of emerging models

Fiscal waist-trimming and "collaborative conferencing"

Nick Joch / May 25, 2011

• Do charter schools skim the top students from traditional public schools? A new policy brief from the Urban Institute attempts to answer this question in the context of Washington DC, one of the nation’s largest alternative schooling hubs, analyzing the family incomes and academic proficiency levels of DC students that exercise school choice.

• It’s time for Ohio to go on a diet. That’s the sentiment, at least, of State Auditor Dave Yost, who recently launched Skinny Ohio, a website to share the best cost-cutting ideas from around the state with local governments and school districts trying to make ends meet (and avoid bad cuts).

• “Confessions of a school ranker” is Jay Matthews’s analysis of school ranking systems in light of the recently-released results of his High School Challenge project, which provides yearly rankings of the nation’s top 1900 public high schools. At the top of the list this year was the Dallas, TX School of Science and Engineering Magnet. Ohio’s top school was Cincinnati’s Walnut Hills High School, which ranked #73 overall.

• Collective bargaining not your style? If you live in Tennessee, rejoice: “Collaborative conferencing” is coming to town. Education Week reports that a new law recently enacted by the Tennessee legislature would give school boards more power than they previously had in negotiations with union representatives, but wages, insurance, working conditions, and the like are still on the bargaining—er, conferencing—table.

» Continued

Fiscal waist-trimming and "collaborative conferencing"