Cleveland Legislative Delay Brings Hope

The Plain Dealer reported this morning that state lawmakers are delaying the introduction of a bill to implement Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson's education plan. And that's a good sign for those seeking a less contentious process and a fair deal for all.

All four (legislators) hope that Jackson and CTU, who found common ground on several issues in a meeting this week, can resolve their last two sticking points.

"If an understanding cannot be reached, we will introduce the legislation we have and negotiate the remaining issues through the legislative process," said state Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland), Sen. Peggy Lehner (R-Kettering), state Rep. Sandra Williams (D-Cleveland) and Rep. Ron Amstutz (R-Wooster) in a joint statement.

This is a good sign because while there was much progress to be made out of Monday's meeting between the sides, there is apparently enough hope a deal can be reached that Jackson's willing to hold off introduction of the bill until after his next meeting with CTU Tuesday.

There are two big sticking points: 1) a so-called "fresh start" provision, which would annul all previously negotiated deals and re-start negotiations from scratch and 2) a provision giving CEO (superintendent) Eric Gordon huge powers to close buildings and make staffing and curriculum decisions at local buildings.

Again, one of the hallmarks of the Cleveland Plan is to give building leaders more freedom to develop curricula and staffing to better suit their particular school. This final sticking point would seem to run counter to that.

However, teachers made a huge concession, which Jackson agreed to accept this week, when they agreed to have personnel decisions like layoffs determined first by teacher evaluations, a large portion of which will be determined by student test scores. Tenure and seniority will only be used if there is a tie between teachers, which probably will rarely happen.

Still no word about whether Charter Schools will be able to collect local revenues and still collect more than double the per pupil amount the state gives to traditional schools. So there's still potential for legislative debate over that issue.

But let's be honest; if the CTU and Jackson are able to agree to a Plan, the chances of holding up the process, unless something unforeseen happens, seems remote.

That, perhaps more than anything else, helps explain legislators' willingness to wait a few days longer than they anticipated. For that agreement, if it's reached, is legislative gold.

Again, my concern remains that while there are many strong portions of the plan, like investing in universal pre-school for 3 and 4 years olds and early childhood academies, because the Plan asks for no additional resources from the state, it is dubious whether these grand plans will be realized.

So while the district may be able to gain significant concessions from teachers, unless the state puts some skin in the game, it is difficult to see how depending on the very dubious prospect of passing a huge levy in November (it would have to be about 10-12 mills just to close the projected deficit in the plan's first year) will make these important investments happen. Even if the levy passes, it will barely change Cleveland's financial position, but will increase Cleveland residents' property tax burden by $310 per $100,000 home on a 10-mill levy, which is significant for a district whose median income is $22,226.

Overreliance on property taxes to pay for schools is something the Ohio Supreme Court has been very clear is unconstitutional. Increasing this burden in Cleveland seems to fall into that category, though because the Supreme Court dropped jurisdiction over these matters, it is unlikely to consider this issue.

Again, it's the state's responsibility to educate Ohio's children under the Ohio Constitution. For the Cleveland Plan to ask nothing additional from it, not even a token gesture, is perhaps the Plan's greatest impediment to success.

Cincy Enquirer Tackles School Funding

The Cincinnati Enquirer took on the broader issue of school funding in Ohio (and Kentucky) in a Tuesday editorial. While its point -- that communities and schools need to do a better job of supporting one another -- is an important one, the saddest part of the editorial for me was this section:

But fixing education is about more than passing tax levies. Behind the financial crisis is a crisis of confidence.

This is a resignation to the idea that passing levies is schools' only hope: The state is a lost cause.

Earlier in the editorial, the writers noticed that within a year the number of school districts that reported budget deficits went from less than half to two out of three. What changed? The state made massive cuts and federal stimulus money dried up. And while the Enquirer made the connection, they simply left it at that.

No demand for the state to live up to its constitutional obligation and reduce the reliance on property taxes to pay for schools. No suggestion to have the public demand such things of their state legislators or Governor. No reminder that for 15 years the state has been required to develop a funding formula that accurately measures the needs of students, then significantly reduces property taxes to pay for those needs. No reminder that the state instead has responded by not having a funding formula for the next two years and slashing state funding by nearly 20% relative to inflation over the last 10 years. And yes, no mention that with the Evidence Based Model, the state had promised to provide up to $400 per $100,000 home in property tax relief over the next 10 years, but the legislature reneged on that promise almost as soon as it was made.

The answer for the Enquirer is this: Districts and communities need to develop better public relations so they can pass more levies, thus increasing our reliance on property taxes to pay for schools.

I know some may think I'm beating a dead horse here, but I learned something from one of my life mentors: If they're getting away with it, it's your fault. State leaders can only get away scot-free from their constitutional obligations if we let them. So let's not let them. This is exemplified with the Cleveland Plan, whose only source of new revenue would come from a massive, new levy in November, whose passage is certainly questionable. Not a single penny is being asked of from the state.

Do I think communities and districts need better partnerships to develop a better likelihood of levy success? Of course. More important, though, is a renewed effort to hold state lawmakers and leaders accountable for forcing districts and communities to make pre-emptive cuts so they can perhaps pass levies that still won't provide adequate resources for every kid in Ohio to receive a world-class education, as they deserve.

However, I understand where the Enquirer is coming from, given Ohio's struggles with this issue.

It is also time for communities to realize that they, not the state or federal government, are the only short-term salvation for local schools, and that educational stability is a key foundation for economic recovery, and continuing to build a strong citizenry.

More stable than that? What the state's framers envisioned: a thorough and efficient state system of education that the state, not local communities, is responsible for funding and leading.

Cautious Optimism in Cleveland

Progress was made yesterday on the Cleveland Plan, as Mayor Frank Jackson agreed to the Cleveland Teachers Union's proposal to base layoffs first on teacher evaluations, then on tenure and seniority.

While a big step, major hurdles remain on the following issues, according to the Plain Dealer account:

The two sides remain far apart, however, on Jackson's push to wipe out all previous contracts and start fresh with new contract negotiations. The union also disagrees with Jackson's proposal to give district Chief Executive Officer Eric Gordon broad powers to lay off or fire teachers to remake any failing school.

Union President David Quolke likened those items to Senate Bill 5, the controversial state law that limited collective bargaining but was repealed sharply by voters in November. Quolke objected to Jackson seeking to have the disputed provisions introduced in the legislature this week, instead of trying to resolve them with the union first.

"The legislation should not be introduced with these two Senate Bill 5 pieces," he said. "We do not believe if we're having productive dialogue that we should jump to legislation." 

Again, as I've said before, why the Mayor and other Cleveland Plan supporters put anything remotely resembling SB 5 into their plan a few months after SB 5 was defeated by more than 20 points at the polls, I will never understand. It seems politically tone deaf to me.

Regardless, it was a good sign that the Mayor was willing to listen to the teachers about their significant movement on the layoff provision. While tenure and seniority will still play a roll, the teachers' compromise effectively eliminates tenure and seniority. That's because those two provisions will only come into play if teachers' evaluations are the same. Evalutions will determine all but a few layoffs, for the likelihood of two teachers' evaluations being exactly the same seems remote to me.

It is impossible to overstate how significant a concession this is for Cleveland's teachers.

The Plain Dealer story did not mention other concerns with the plan, like giving local revenue to Charter Schools, but if yesterday's agreement is any indication, it looks like Mayor Jackson and the Cleveland teachers are working together toward a better day for Cleveland's kids.

And that is a good thing.

Study: Ohio Getting It Right on RttT...So Far

An encouraging story in the Columbus Dispatch today reported that Ohio's Race to the Top grant is not in jeopardy, and in fact the state is making "significant progress" in the law's implementation, according to a study from the Center for American Progress. And there's plenty of credit to go around for this initial success.

Here's what the Dispatch reported CAP's assessment of Ohio's progress:

"A year into the program, Ohio still faces implementation challenges, but the state can point to some clear and important victories. These successes include opening avenues to draw in and develop new teachers, adopting Common Core standards, and piloting an innovative teacher-evaluation program,” the study said.

As a reminder, the Common Core and teacher evaluation system work all began in Ohio prior to RttT, which might explain why Ohio is ahead of other states on these issues. It also doesn't hurt that the Ohio Educator Standards Board, which is made up of teachers and administrators, developed the model system, which gave Ohio's teachers much more sway over its development and, therefore, much more buy in with its success.

While the Dispatch reports that changes were made to the system in November to require 50% of a teacher's evaluation be based on test scores, the OESB prior to the change had already approved a sliding scale of student testing that allowed at least 40% and up to 50% of the evaluation to be based on the scores, depending on a teacher's experience. So the state's teachers had already committed to having a significant portion of their evaluation be dependant on test scores.

Will RttT work and achieve real results? That remains to be seen. I am concerned that the benefit RttT funds could have will be offset by massive cuts to state funding, especially in Ohio, which cut education by about $3 billion total in the last budget, or seven-and-a-half times greater than the total RttT grant. So it may ultimately be difficult to measure RttT's success.

But I will say this: What the CAP study shows is that Ohio's professionals at the Department of Education, as well as the Educator Standards Board and throughout the state's school districts are working together -- no small feat given Ohio's struggles on education policy issues over the years.

Even if state cuts impede the ultimate success of RttT in Ohio, if all the program did is get groups of folks to start working together better, the program will be a success.

Piet Van Lier's Sunday Column

Piet Van Lier, my counterpart at Policy Matters Ohio, wrote a great column about the Cleveland Plan this weekend which succinctly discusses its strengths and failings. His point not to rush things and to make sure reform is meaningful and long lasting is one that I hope leaders and legislators take into strong consideration, as well as his call for a more serious state education funding commitment.

We'll see what impact, if any, this column has on the process, which seems fast tracked.

Next Move in Cleveland: Mayor Jackson and Buisness Leaders

This has been quite a last few days in the evolution of the Cleveland Plan. First of all, on Friday, Cleveland's teachers unveiled their response to the Plan with a Plan of their own. The Plain Dealer did one of those great things only newspapers can do: list the ideas side by side for the public to see here.

The teachers made a serious step toward the Cleveland Plan authors, though probably not as far as the authors would like. However, Ohio's teachers have taken serious strides on compensation and evaluation reform since 2009. Prior to HB 1, teachers received special job protection under the law, couldn't be "riffed" (reduction in force for financial reasons) and got tenure after 3 years. Now they are agreeing to be evaluated based in large measure on student success and are willing to give up many job protections they have long held. Quite a change.

One thing that must be reiterated is the fact that the argument is now over whether Cleveland should simply adopt the state's Model Teacher Evaluation System (which has been signed off on by the state's teachers unions) and apply it to compensation, or adopt the Cleveland provisions shows just how far Cleveland and Ohio's teachers have come on this issue in a few short years. It is utterly false to claim anymore that teachers are clinging to a 20th Century status quo. They have been willing to make major changes to their compensation and evaluation structures. I hope others have noticed as well.

Meanwhile, Cleveland state Sen. Nina Turner and state Rep. Sandra Williams co-wrote an op-ed in Sunday's Plain Dealer in which they committed to the idea that doing nothing is not an option.

We must answer the mayor's call to action and work collaboratively toward genuine, lasting reform -- no more Band-Aids, no more half-measures.

The op-ed was just as curious for its lack of specific endorsement of the Cleveland Plan and its provisions as their appearance at last week's news conference.

The legislators seem to be walking a tightrope; they want change in Cleveland and understand how desperate the situation is, but have serious concerns about the collective bargaining provisions and other potential statewide consequences its implementation could have, especially considering Gov. John Kasich's hearty endorsement of it as a template for what he wants to do. It's kind of like when a girlfriend or boyfriend tells you, "I don't love you, but I love the idea of you."

So where are we now?

It's really up to Mayor Jackson and the Cleveland business community. Will their counter proposal to the teachers' proposal come as far to the teachers' side as the teachers' proposal came to theirs? Will they play hardball? Will they simply ignore the proposal and continue their current march?

A couple things I think would help this issue come to resolution.

1) Understanding that what happens in Cleveland won't necessarily stay in Cleveland. That could really help sharpen some of these provisions, which, if adopted, could have serious, long-term, damaging statewide consequences. To simply say that "we only want this to apply to Cleveland" is nice, in theory. However, given that the Voucher experiment in Cleveland has grown to a potentially $300 million plus statewide program next school year, is it not a concern that what happens now in Cleveland could expand just as exponentially? Keeping the potential statewide implications in mind of these provisions would really help, I think.

2) Asking something of the state in the way of property tax relief. Letting the state off the hook when, in large measure, it was the state that put the district in its financial predicament (e.g. a 30% cut in state money since 2000 relative to inflation, as well as more than $100 million in state money being shipped out of Cleveland to Charters and Vouchers), seems unfair to the district's property taxpayers.

As I've said before, the Cleveland Plan can be fixed so that nearly everyone can live with it. But in order for that to happen, both sides have to be willing to work together. Judging from the teachers' proposals, they are willing to do this. The next question is, "Will Mayor Jackson and Cleveland's business community?"

They're on the clock.

Are Schools Cheating? Or Did DDN Swing and Miss?

Fascinating and ambitious articles appeared today in the Dayton Daily News and Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In them, the newspapers analyzed test data from across the country and came to a stunning conclusion, as articulated by the DDN:

Steep spikes and drops on standardized test scores, a pattern that has indicated cheating in Atlanta and other cities across the nation, have occurred in hundreds of school districts and charter schools across Ohio in the past seven years, a Dayton Daily News analysis found.

While quick to point out that it doesn't prove cheating, the DDN was equally quick to point out that similar analysis done a few years ago by the AJC led to an investigation that infamously exposed massive cheating throughout Atlanta Public Schools. The methodology, as described by the DDN was this:

The newspapers used a statistical model on year-to-year changes in reading and math test scores at the school level for third- through eighth-grade students during seven years, beginning in 2005.
The analysis flagged as suspicious any score change that had less than a 5 percent probability of occurring by chance based on all the other scores on that test in that state.

Both the Ohio Department of Education and the Ohio Education Association called the methodology used by the papers as suspect and questionable. And, as an apparent acknowledgement of the methodology's shakiness, the DDN declined to name any of the suspect schools (both traditional and charter) that popped up in their analysis.

I, too, have questions about the methodology. It seems to me that the papers took an important first step toward learning something. They needed to take more. Chance may not have caused it, but it doesn't mean cheating did; nor does it mean chance didn't. They needed to do additional analysis on their suspicious districts.

As anyone who has taught knows, one year's group of students may be more successful than other years', which helps explain some variation; this is why it is important to use multi-year rolling averages, not year-to-year figures when using test scores to determine teacher evaluations. Some years, districts may choose to focus more on test taking techniques to drive up scores in anticipation of a levy, which may explain variation. There may be cheating scandals, yet one would think that if there were, it would be more sustained and not as variable as the DDN piece suggests. You would think that if the district would choose to cheat one year, they would keep cheating; so there wouldn't be the yo-yos between years. I would want to look at schools that had one huge jump in scores, then kept those higher scores in subsequent years.

One thing that makes the rampant cheating argument tougher to make, at least in Ohio, is that a regression analysis of Performance Index scores shows such a strong correlation between demographics and test scores, it is difficult to imagine cheating in about 75 percent of districts because their outcomes can be predicted from their demographic makeup.

One could use that analysis to take the districts whose scores were higher than expected and examine them more closely, looking at erasure marks (like what the USA Today did with Washington, DC's scores) and other methodologies to determine if cheating is indeed as widespread as the DDN is intimating. The paper could have done a regression as a back up to their test data as well to determine if the scores were in line with how districts and charters had scored previously, or whether they scored about where you would expect them to score statewide. For instance, if you would predict a building to be the 2,750th rated building based on its demographics, and they instead ranked 2,735th, you wouldn't think as much about their sudden jump in scores because they continue to be rated about where you'd expect statewide.

I'm not saying any of these examples prove or disprove the DDN story, or that these are the only questions that need answered. What I am saying is answers to these questions would have made it a much stronger story.

If you're going to write a story that suggests massive, statewide (and in AJC's case, national) cheating on standardized tests, you'd better be prepared to name the offenders and feel solid enough in your methodology to refute the state's education agency and largest teachers union, both of whom knocked the papers' methods. If you have to spend a large chunk of your story having competing experts defend and knock your statistical analysis, you need to re-do the analysis. Though it showed integrity for the paper to allow those critical comments in the story.

As a former reporter, I can say these issues would invariably pop up before big stories ran. Sometimes, it means delaying your story for a day or two, or in a few cases, never run them at all. As a journalist, you, as a general rule, cannot spend any time in your story defending your story. If you have to, it means you don't have it nailed down yet; it needs more time in the oven.

However, the part of the DDN story that's not flawed (and didn't require a single bit of statistical analysis) is this: Ohio (and I would assume other states) pay very little attention to cheating, and that's a problem. Ohio only requires test vendors to spent $17,000 of a $39 million contract on it. This means more as greater and greater emphasis is placed on testing. Under the state's Model Teacher Evaluation System, for example, 50 percent of a teacher's evaluation will be based on test scores.

As the stakes go higher, the potential for mischief grows as well. Is this to say that with higher stakes testing, teachers and administrators will cheat more? Not necessarily. But shouldn't the state pay more attention now that tests are assuming not just a position of of parochial pride, but are determining where money goes? Remember that in addition to the new evaluation system, the state provided a bonus for highly rated schools in this year's budget and allowed Charters to open in any district that scored in the bottom 5 percent of school districts on the Performance Index score, potentially removing additional millions in state dollars from districts that scored that low and tend to be more dependant on state dollars.

The DDN and AJC stories brought up very important points: As testing determines more and more in education funding, shouldn't those overseeing tax dollars be more vigilant of potential problems, especially in light of what's happened around the country with huge cheating scandals?

To that question, the answer is obvious.

Whether there's rampant cheating in Ohio and across the country remains to be seen. The DDN and AJC stories, unfortunately, leave more questions than they answer. It will be interesting to see whether the stories lead to greater vigilance and analysis of what's going on in today's world of high-stakes testing.

Weird Cleveland Plan News Conference

It began with a post from the Plain Dealer saying that Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson would be holding a news conference in Columbus at 3 p.m. yesterday with a Democrat and Republican from each chamber of the Ohio General Assembly.

This appeared to signal a deal had been reached to move the Cleveland Plan forward through the legislature. However, it was curious that Minority Leader Armond Budish, who is actively working on a compromise deal, was not in attendance.

Yet it appeared that some Cleveland Democrats had decided to make a deal, so there was much anticipation about the conference.

However, the news conference announced neither the introduction of a bill, nor the formal co-sponsorship of either Democratic lawmaker. Just that it's coming soon.

So, the news conference was really just an opportunity for the Mayor to stand with a bipartisan group of legislators to suggest that the Cleveland Plan must move now. Cleveland's kids can't wait was the clear indication. Equally clear was the suggestion that any effort to change the plan was somehow less concerned with the urgency necessary to help Cleveland's kids. I've done enough of these kinds of things to understand the optics of what was being attempted yesterday.

Again, there are lots of things to like in the Cleveland Plan, like the commitment to diverse education options for kids of diverse education interest, as well as the commitment to universal pre-school for 3 and 4 year olds and college and career readiness.

However, it relies on zero property tax relief from the state, forces provisions of SB 5 on teachers (who didn't like them last year either) and opens the Pandora's Box of allowing Charter Schools to receive local revenues when Charters already receive twice as much per pupil from the state as local school districts.

All of these issues can be worked out. This plan can be fixed so that nearly everyone can accept it. But folks have to be willing to stop the sand line drawing, listen to each other and understand one thing: Nobody. I mean Nobody wants the status quo in Cleveland.

We all understand that changes need made in Cleveland. We may disagree over their shape, but there is zero question that everyone wants Cleveland's schools to work better for its kids. The more folks can keep that in mind, the better the discussions and, frankly, the better the eventual plan. If a deal is struck today or six weeks from today, they will both be ready for the next school year.

So let's get it right. Our kids deserve it.

Another Red Flag for TFA?

In the Washington Post recently, Valerie Strauss blogged about a fascinating development in the long, complicated history of Teach for America -- the controversial alternative teacher training program, which has been singled out recently in Ohio as a significant, positive addition to Ohio's educator portfolio.

The posting details how TFA has signed an agreement with Imagine Schools -- the nation's largest for-profit Charter School operation -- to provide teachers at Imagine. Here's most of the post:

Imagine is based in Arlington, Virginia, with some 75 schools in more than a dozen states, including Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The for-profit charter operator has been investigated in some states for the way it exercises control over the schools it manages, essentially ignoring the boards of trustees that are supposed to really run the schools.
It has also come under scrutiny for its complicated real estate deals that generate millions of public dollars for Imagine. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for example, detailed the deals involving six Imagine schools operating with public money in St. Louis. Essentially Imagine opened schools and then sold the buildings in which the schools operated to a company that then leased them back to Imagine at often extremely high rates, which are, of course, paid for out of public money.
Beyond the rent, the paper also reported that Imagine’s charter schools must pay 12 percent of their budget for management costs. Still, it said, some Imagine schools were missing pencils, paper, books and other basic supplies.
As for student outcomes, the standardized test scores in that city’s Imagine schools are below the state and city average, the paper said.
And that’s just what’s going on in one city. There’s trouble in others, too.
Now Imagine is partnering with Teach for America, the organization that takes new college graduates, gives them five weeks of training in a summer institute and — thinking that five weeks is somehow enough preparation — sends these recruits into some of America’s neediest schools to teach troubled kids in a quest to help close the achievement gap.

Policy Matters Ohio did a huge report on Imagine Schools in 2010. In it, they made the following conclusion:

"Imagine Schools, Inc., continues practices here for which it has been criticized elsewhere; in some cases authorities in other states have denied the company permission to open schools because of its record of poor school management."

Gov. John Kasich said at the time he signed legislation to allow TFA into Ohio's most challenged districts that "The cavalry is coming. They're going to ride in on their white horses with their white hats into our schools and be able to inject a tremendous amount of enthusiasm, talent, and capability and real-world understanding." The recently introduced Cleveland Transformation Plan singles out TFA as a potentially key source of additional human capital to implement the plan.

The idea is clear -- TFA will rescue Ohio's most challenged kids through sheer energy, will and intelligence. By implication, traditional education programs are de-valued.

Of course, TFA's results are less impressive than one would hope, as this Associated Press story has demonstrated. And, in fact, the same story indicates that Kasich's description of recent college graduates' real-world experience appears to be trumped by teachers' actual teaching experience, advanced degrees and licensing scores. TFA teachers, by contrast, receive a 5-week summer training course that qualifies them to enter the heart of the country's most troubled schools.

So why is this organization -- whose altruistic, idealistic claims have led state leaders to describe them as white hatted cavalry -- signing agreements with a Charter School operator with such a checkered financial and academic past in Ohio and elsewhere? Ohio has the second-highest number of Imagine Schools of any state, by the way.

TFA has potential, certainly. It encourages bright, energetic college graduates who never thought about teaching to enter a workforce that needs as many bright, energetic people in it as possible. While the way TFA trains teachers is questionable, its goal of inspiring more bright, energetic kids to teach our nation's most struggling youth is absolutely laudable.

However, TFA's choice to join forces with a company whose coming under increasing criticism nationwide for caring more about turning profits than educating kids makes one wonder, "What is going on?"

Cleveland Proposed Alliance to Remain Hidden from Public Eyes?

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer today, one of the key components of Cleveland's school transformation plan would not be subject to public scrutiny.

Proposals given to state legislators last Saturday call for the Cleveland Transformation Alliance, which would have the power to block new charter schools from opening if they did not meet standards, to be exempt from state open meetings or open records laws.

This Alliance would be non profit and would serve many functions that seem to logically fit with what school boards could do, like approving Charter Schools and rating the district's schools.

To his credit, Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, who appoints the school board and would appoint members to this Alliance, has expressed an interest in creating more transparency with the Alliance.

"I think it's a legitimate question to raise," Jackson said, adding that transparency is important. "I agree that there shouldn't be anything to hide." 

Ron Adler, who has been one of the strongest advocates for Charter Schools and one of the Traditional Schools' toughest critics, told the Plain Dealer he wants to see the Alliance be transparent.

In Innovation Ohio's report about the Cleveland Plan, we suggested that the Alliance be open to the public and either have more accountability to the public by having elected officials appoint its members (as the current draft of the legislation does), or make the panel advisory to the school board.

Again, as long as the Alliance is open and accountable to the public, it would appear to maintain the strong tradition of public accountability that has long been a hallmark of our state's school system. Allowing the Alliance to do business in the dark would seem to countermand that tradition.

Research: Dropout Prevention Like Kasich's Plan May Increase Dropout Rates

Gov. John Kasich introduced an idea today to hold back kids until they are proficient in reading by fourth grade, citing research indicating that kids who can't read at crade level by foruth grade are more likely to drop out of school.

However, there is strong research out there indicating that holding kids back in the elementary years, as Kasich's plan would do, actually increases dropout rates. From a study published in the American Education Research Journal:

Repeating a grade from kindergarten to sixth grade was associated with a substantial increase in the odds of dropping out even after controlling for differences in background and postretention ... Students who ended sixth grade overage for grade experienced substantial disengagement during middle school; nearly one quarter dropped out, and those who remained had significant declines in attendance. I find that the impact of being overage for grade during adolescence may explain a large proportion of the higher dropout rates among retained youths.

Other studies come to the same conclusion, like this from Grade Retention: Is It a Help or Hindrance to Student Academic Success? which was authored by Lisa J. Bowman and published in Preventing School Failure in its Spring 2005 volume:

 The accumulated research offers little support for student grade retention. My review revealed that retaining students does not increase their academic performance (Dawson, 1998; Jimerson, 2001), but does contribute to low self-esteem (Thomas, 2002).

Bowman goes on to say that in some limited cases retention makes sense. But using blanket retention policies, as Kasich is proposing, simply do not have the desired positive effects on student outcomes, as laudable as the Governor's goal is.

What does this mean for the Governor's desire to increase children's reading ability and graduation rates? What it means is the idea to pursue a blanket policy to hold back kids is, at best, a risky gamble. Especially considering that the plan will involve no property tax relief from the state.

Early reading intervention is key, clearly, but the research indicates that can all be undone by holding kids back in the elementary grades. Let's hope the legislature takes a long, hard look at this policy and adjusts it appropriately so that more kids read better earlier without unduly risking that work by pursuing a dubious policy that favors retaining vast numbers of children.

Kasich Ed Reforms: Modest, Unpaid For with More Privatization

Today, Gov. John Kasich laid out his modest education reform proposals, with zero property tax relief to help districts accomplish them, despite an estimated large source of revenue coming from fracking.

State leaders are still waiting for the elephant in the room -- the Cleveland Plan -- to coalesce and develop into the major reform package Kasich is seeking. Kasich developed a separate sheet on that Plan, and he urged legislators to adopt it as is from Mayor Frank Jackson. The fact sheet was actually developed by Jackson's office, not Kasich's.

There were a few surprises. First of all, his call for digital learning standards did not refer to eSchool standards (which should be developed in the next year and were developed first in 2003 but never adopted); they referred instead to the development of so-called "blended learning environments" -- the same things former Education Czar Robert Sommers infamously claimed could handle student-teacher ratios of 50:1. There is little question about blended learning's potential to improve student achievement, especially if constructivist models are used. However, if they are used simply to reduce the need for teachers by driving up ratios, then they are less effective.

In addition, Gov. Kasich is to be commended for recognizing that it's difficult for administrators to handle evaluating teachers as many times as he would like. However, his answer is not to provide state support to help administrators with the function; it is to outsource the teacher evaluations, which could lead to a huge new opportunity for groups to come into Ohio and evaluate teachers with whom they have zero experience working and don't know at all. This is another blow for taxpayer control of the education system they are paying for.

He also recommended the creation of interventions to head off kids who aren't on schedule to complete reading by fourth grade, with a guarantee that they wouldn't be allowed to advance in grades if they don't. He cited evidence that being behind in reading can lead to greater dropout rates, which is true. Having lower student:teacher ratios in the K-3 grades can more than double graduation rates for economically disadvantaged kids too, but that peer-reviewed research wasn't included in Gov. Kasich's plan. In either case, there will be no property tax relief provided by the state for districts to do this new programming, which means it will be another unfunded mandate that local districts will have to cut services or raise taxes to implement.

Kasich is also to be commended for developing dropout recovery standards (which have been sitting on a dusty shelf since their development in 2005), but it is unclear whether the performance measures he suggests using are going to be driven low enough that most dropout recovery schools will remain open. Again, it's not clear from the outline whether Kasich will adopt the 2005 standards or ignore those and develop his own, but the 2005 standards are not mentioned in his fact sheet.

Kasich's plan calls for student assessments and student growth to be used in the measuring (likely performance index and value-added measurements) of dropout recovery success. One would think graduation rates should play a role in the evaluation of dropout recovery schools. After all, isn't the goal of dropout recovery schools to graduate kids?

All in all, the cost of this modest reform package, despite its limited scope, still will be borne by local property taxpayers. That is, perhaps, its greatest short coming, especially considering how much additional revenue could be had for property tax relief if the state simply charged oil and gas companies what Texas does for extracting our natural resources.

The House Finance & Appropriations Committee will begin hearings on these new measures (set to be delivered in several bills) tomorrow. Stay tuned.

State Board Passes on Cleveland Plan ... For Now

According to the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio's State Board of Education decided yesterday not to take a position on the Cleveland Plan, holding off until April's board meeting at the earliest. Gov. John Kasich had personally asked the board to endorse the plan on Monday.

Traditionally, the board has not waded into political and legislative debates, but on Monday the governor pleaded with members to pass a resolution or provide some sort of backing to Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson’s plan.

“I’m begging you as human beings to not let this go down the drain,” Kasich told the board in his first public address to the panel since he took office last year.

It is not unprecedented for the State School Board to endorse education reform plans. For instance, in 2009, they endorsed the wide-ranging reforms contained in House Bill 1, including the Evidence Based Model. It will be interesting, though, if they choose to endorse a locally driven reform agenda rather than a statewide effort, since their jurisdiction is over statewide education concerns.

What is clear, given Gov. Kasich's Monday plea to the Board, is that he is counting on the Cleveland Plan serving as a template for his larger reform agenda to be unveiled next year. So we'll see if the group responsible for all the state's education efforts will endorse this district-specific plan, given its potentially wide-ranging state impact.

If they do, it's one more indication that what happens in Cleveland will resonate throughout the state. That's why the Cleveland Plan must receive a thorough and thoughtful vetting.

Don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that Vouchers were billed as Cleveland-specific. Now, up to 60,000 kids can be receiving them statewide next year, potentially removing more than $300 million from school districts. And that's just in one of the state's voucher programs.

So keep an eye on the State School Board's actions on this matter. It will provide an indication of the momentum this plan has statewide.

UPDATE Proposed Cleveland Language: More Charter Concerns

The Cleveland Plan authors have contended that this plan would only apply in Cleveland; they have made that point time and again. Why then does the language for the "Charters get local revenue" provision of the plan have generic "insert school district" language in it?

"Shall a levy be imposed by the ......... (insert the name of the municipal school district) for the purpose of current expenses of the school district and of qualifying community schools at a rate not exceeding ...... (insert the number of mills) mills for each one dollar of valuation, of which ...... (insert the number of mills to be allocated to qualifying community schools) mills is to be allocated to qualifying community schools, which amounts to ....... (insert the rate expressed in dollars and cents) for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for ...... (insert the number of years the levy is to be imposed, or that it will be levied for a continuing period of time), beginning ...... (insert first year the tax is to be levied), which will first be payable in calendar year ...... (insert the first calendar year in which the tax would be payable)?"

UPDATE: I know there's only one municipal school district in Ohio right now. But that doesn't mean another district won't ever meet that definition, especially as funding continues to dry up and districts become more and more desperate. Again, the Cleveland authors had to know that public school advocates would be especially paranoid about this local revenue provision. So why would they leave any stone unturned in assuring advocates that this will only ever apply to Cleveland, unlike what happened with Vouchers? On this language, they are leaving open the possibility of any school district sharing their local revenue with Charter Schools, and not necessarily high-performing ones, since the ballot language does not define a "qualifying community school." This will feed the fears of many traditional schools advocates that the Cleveland Plan will lead to dangerous, larger, statewide issues.

In addition, the language as it currently stands reads that these revenues will only go to a Charter that "has entered into" an agreement with the district. However, a proposed change listed at the beginning of the document says that there should be a change to make it say "a party to" an agreement with the district. This could open up the range of parties to whom the local revenue could go to include for-profit operators and other entities.

I will continue looking at the language throughout the day, so check back from time to time for updates.

Cleveland Plan Language Leaked

The Plain Dealer has posted a link to the proposed language of the Cleveland Plan. In my first quick look at it (which entailed me looking at the Charter School provisions because they are first in the 189-page document), Cleveland is seeking to allow Charter Schools a bite of not just an operating levy, but a bond issue as well. In addition, the language specifically prohibits any  adjustment in the amount of money Charters will get from the state, even if they get levy money. Again, Charters are paid much more per pupil than local districts by the state for the express reason that they can't get local revenues.

If they are allowed to collect local revenue on top of those larger state payments, it will mean unequivocally that the Charter Schools that get these revenues will be the most expensive schools in the state district for taxpayers -- quite a far cry from their promised "Better and Cheaper" mantra from the late 1990s.

I will have more to say about this language throughout the day, but I wanted to put this out for you, dear readers, so you can look at it too. This plan is too important for all of us not to closely examine.

UPDATE: Kasich Previews Small Scale Ed Reforms

The Columbus Dispatch reported today that Gov. John Kasich will be introducing some education reforms in his mid-biennium budget corrections bill, but he is almost desperate to have the Cleveland Plan included -- the Dispatch described his request before the State Board of Education as "begging". From the Dispatch story:

The governor’s plan will also call for new and tougher grading system for schools, standards for digital education, reporting academic performance of students attending technical schools and helping students find their passions and better understand the purpose of getting an education by providing opportunities for them to interact with business professionals and other outside-of-school activities.

These are all pretty minor adjustments, although it's good to see the Governor embrace digital education standards -- the State Board of Education recommended some in 2003 that have yet to be adopted. I wish he felt the same about dropout recovery programs, whose standards have been sitting around since 2005. Update: A new report from Gongwer suggests that Kasich would like to have dropout recovery standards implemented as well -- a welcome change in direction.

The other issues are more technical in nature and sound like a good idea, like allowing students more externship or observation opportunities in businesses. We'll see if any state funding follows these ideas (paying businesses to host kids, for example), but in principle they make sense.

However, the big reform he's seeking is the holding kids back until they can read in fourth-grade -- reform that's a familiar idea and has been making its way around the states.

Full disclosure: In my education reform that I developed between 2007 and 2009, early reading intervention was a key provision of my education funding model. I would have provided additional funding to districts when their kindergartners rated below a certain score on the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA-L), and would have paid bonuses to districts based on how many kids were able to be caught up to grade-level expectations by fourth grade. I would have continued the additional weighted funding through eighth grade as well.

So I get the need to catch kids up by fourth grade. I know it's an important milestone, and I want all kids to get there. However, I find it difficult to imagine how more kids can be caught up without additional resources, or taking resources from other educational opportunities. It seems to me that this plan is going to necessitate huge fourth grade classes and buildings. There is a value in kids of similar ages being in the same grades.

Does it do good to have kids who are two or three years older in a fourth grade class? And what about kids who excel in other areas and maybe ahead in other subjects? Do they get held back too?

Again, what the Governor is discovering is what we found out in 2009 -- Reform is tough, hard and in most cases it involves difficult, nuanced choices. Do you continue to cut, as this regime has done, or do you provide additional state resources to meet higher and higher standards so local taxpayers don't have to keep passing higher and higher property taxes?

I think this Governor's efforts should give folks a good idea of how truly remarkable House Bill 1 was in 2009, and you don't even have to like what was in it. For scale and scope, it is unlikely to be matched in this state. It took on nearly every major aspect of education reform, did it in one bill, and passed in the course of a few months.

You may not agree with its contents, nor its messengers, but you have to respect its effort.

New Report Card: State of State School Overrated

Apparently, Gov. John Kasich's choice of State of the State venue was overrated.

Kasich caused a tizzy when he chose to move the annual speech to Wells Academy in Steubenville, citing how it is doing great things despite budget challenges -- not so subtly suggesting that money doesn't matter as much to academic performance as commitment, vision and innovative adaptability to tough budget times.

However, Ohio's proposed waiver from No Child Left Behind contains a new Report Card system that State Superintendent Stan Heffner claims will give Ohioans a clearer indication of its schools' performance. And under that new system, Wells Academy goes from an A on the report card to a B.

Is this evaluation really more accurate? Or is it the result of a ham-handed evaluation tool that hurts schools like Wells Academy, which overcome demographic challenges to be considered great enough to host an important gubernatorial address?

The new Report Card is based largely on standardized tests, which are tremendously influenced by demographics. Under this new system, a building and district's ratings are even more dependant upon their demographics than the prior system, which was pretty well dependant upon demographics as well.

Note: According to an Excel regression analysis of ODE data on the new system at the district level, demographics (poverty, income, property valuation, teacher salaries, educational attainment levels, etc.) produce an R-squared value of .48 for the new system vs. an R-squared of .45 for the previous system. The closer to 1 (or -1), the stronger the correlation.

This could explain why Wells Academy now rates a B rather than an A because its demographics are not favorable. So if the evaluation system's more dependant on them, Wells will seem less successful under that evaluation. But is Wells, in fact, less successful than the Governor and nearly every other education observer in this state thought? And if the new system made a mistake on Wells, what about the other districts and buildings?

For the issue isn't just at Wells Academy. Of the 3,409 school buildings rated under the old system, more than 77 percent rate worse under the proposed system, according to ODE projections. And that's assuming that the Excellent with Distinction buildings under the old 5-point Report Card, which equates to an A+, would rate the same under the new 4-point system the department's assuming (which doesn't include A+, just an A). So it's probably an even higher percentage.

Only 40 buildings improve, which means that barely 1 percent of buildings were underrated by the old system. Meanwhile, more than three-quarters of buildings were overrated. Can that even be possible?

Meanwhile, more than 83 percent of school districts were overrated, while none, that's right, not a single Ohio school district was underrated by the previous system.

I hope folks ask a simple question: "Was the old system that off?"

Roosevelt Elementary in Springfield (right in my backyard here near Akron) was an "Effective" building under the old system, meaning it rated a B. Under the new system, it's an F. Three ISUS Charter Schools in Dayton were rated Excellent under the old system, an A. Under the new, they all get Ds.

Meanwhile, the only schools that actually improve under the new system are 40 schools that improve from Academic Emergency under the old system -- an F, to a D under the new system. No building improved more than one step. And no building rated above an F in the old system improves under the new system.

One would think if you were creating a more accurate system, there would be corrections in both directions, certainly not all in one direction.

Charter Schools' rating changes are interesting. While 83 percent of school districts saw their grade levels drop, only 55 percent of Charters saw them drop (perhaps because more of them rated poorly under the old system and had less room to drop). Meanwhile, 45 percent of Charters stayed the same or improved under the new Report Card, though improvement was relegated to previously failing charters.

One side effect of this is that fewer Charters would be up for closing under the new system, assuming the same standards that applied under the old report card are transferred to the new one.

The performance differences remain stark between Charters and Districts. Only 10 percent of Charters rate B or higher on the new system (nearly 3 in 4 rate D or F), with some of the better thought of Charters slipping from As or A+s under the old system to Bs in the current one, like Wells Academy did on the Traditional side.

Meanwhile, two-thirds of school districts rate B or better on the new report card, with about 10 percent rating D or F.

Despite these clear questions about the new Report Card's methodology, all I really care about is this question: Now what?

What's the state's plan to improve these schools, since the Ohio Constitution and State Supreme Court have found education to be a state responsibility in Ohio? Will cutting more money from the state budget help districts be more innovative? Can the improvement happen with the same amount the state's spending, just with better, more focused programming? Will local taxpayers have to tax themselves at higher rates so districts have the necessary resources to meet the tougher standards certain to come down from the state? Will districts be able to pass levies now when they are considered B and C districts rather than A and B districts?

These are just some of the many questions the state and districts now face.

Again, I would like to see a system that rates districts not so much on their proficiency rates, which are so heavily influence by demographics, but upon their relative success in overcoming those barriers. So, for example, a Performance Index score of 82 may be phenomenal in some districts, but in the wealthier ones, that would be a terrible score. So the district where 82 is great should have that score weighted to account for their greater challenges.

In other words, Wells Academy should take its rightful place as a source of pride for the community and state, not relegated to the above average. It's difficult to understand how one of the best schools in the state is now merely one of the good ones.

Study: Grads Don't Need all that College Remediation

Here's something interesting. It appears that all those High School graduates taking remedial courses their first years in college don't really need it. From the story in Inside Higher Ed:

The research, which analyzed data from a large, urban community college system and a statewide two-year system, found that up to a third of students who placed into remedial classes on the basis of the placement tests could have passed college-level classes with a grade of B or better.

So who told these students they needed remediation? Standardized tests. In particular, the COMPASS and ACCUPLACER exams (from ACT, Inc. and College Board, respectively). According to Inside Higher Ed:

The accuracy of placement tests has been the subject of little research, the researchers said. But the new studies suggest that colleges should reconsider how they use the tests to decide which students need remediation.

What is so troubling is enrollment in remediation courses in college has a significant impact on the student finishing college.

... remedial education is a black hole from which comparatively few students ever emerge. Only 25 percent of students in remedial classes will eventually earn a degree from a community college or transfer to a four-year college, research has found.

Once again, research has demonstrated the limitations of standardized testing. This is why making these things even more high stakes is potentially dangerous. Tests can be quite helpful when used as evaluative tools to improve and direct instruction.

However, extrapolating their results to the extent that it permanently affects students' academic careers or other non-evaluative measures is extremely problematic.

IO Warns: Caution in Cleveland

At Innovation Ohio, we just put out the first comprehensive, independent report on the proposed Cleveland Plan for transforming its schools.

Far from an anti-Plan screed, the report points out some very positive aspects of the reform agenda, like universal pre-school for 3 and 4 year olds, or Early Childhood Academies.

However, there are some major problems with the plan, such as granting significant authority to an un-elected board governed by folks outside the district, giving local tax revenues to Charter Schools and unnecessarily re-fighting the Senate Bill 5 War. At IO, we offered potential solutions to address each of these fatal flaws in the plan.

As this plan develops, 10th Period will keep close tabs. Here is the IO Press Release in its entirety, which gives a good synopsis of the report:

Innovation Ohio Says Cleveland School Plan Needs Work

Think Tank Both Praises and Criticizes Reform Plan

Columbus: Innovation Ohio, a progressive think tank headquartered in Columbus, today released an analysis of the education reform plan recently put forward by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson. Governor Kasich has indicated the plan might serve as a model for his own education reform effort, which presumably will include the new school funding formula he promised but so far has failed to deliver. The analysis is available at www.innovationohio.org.
IO said an analysis of the “Cleveland Plan” is important given Ohio’s history of expanding Cleveland education experiments, such as private school vouchers, state-wide. “If Governor Kasich is intent on using the Cleveland Plan as a model for other Ohio school districts, then it’s critical that we get it right,” said IO President Janetta King.
The analysis found a number of “things to like” about the Cleveland Plan, including:

• Innovations such as a Global Language Academy, an Environmental Science School, Early Childhood Education Academies in every neighborhood, and an English Immersion School for all children for whom English is a second language;
• A focus on high-quality preschool education, as well as on college and workforce readiness; and
• A series of proposed changes to state law that would, for example, give the Cleveland Metropolitan School District flexibility to manage its fiscal assets and close loopholes in existing law that allow poorly-performing Charter Schools to continue operating.

IO said other ideas, like adoption of a year-round school calendar, support for high-quality Charter Schools, and the aggressive pursuit of talented teachers, “have potential, but need more work and further fleshing-out.”
But Innovation Ohio said several Cleveland Plan ideas are fatally flawed as currently written and should either be modified substantially or jettisoned entirely. Among these are:

• A proposal to allow the transfer of local property tax revenue to Charter schools;
• The transfer of school oversight and other functions from the Cleveland School Board (accountable to the Mayor) to an unelected and less accountable “Cleveland Transformation Alliance”;
• A weighted per pupil funding formula with “money following the child” that, in IO’s view, would inevitably end up short-changing either students or schools;
• Several proposals relating to teacher compensation, collective bargaining and accountability, which IO says are exact replicas of provisions in last year’s Senate Bill 5, which Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected with 61% of the vote in November.

Said IO President Janetta King:
“IO congratulates the authors of the Cleveland Plan for thinking outside the box and being willing to go big. Nothing is more important to Ohio’s future than our schools and our kids. That’s why education reform is so important, and it’s why all of us who truly care about our state, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, liberals and moderates alike–must be willing to embrace change and challenge the status quo.
“But our goal cannot be change for the sake of change, or change that can’t work and will only make things worse. So Innovation Ohio has tried to be constructive in our analysis. Where we’ve been critical of the Cleveland Plan, we’ve offered alternative ideas and proposals that we believe are more likely to achieve the desired goals.
“But we recognize that we don’t have all the answers. Frankly, neither do the people who put the Cleveland Plan together. And that is why we believe any serious school reform discussion should and must include the voices of professional educators, parents, and other members of the community. We hope their exclusion will be rectified in the weeks and months ahead.
“So what is Innovation Ohio’s bottom-line take on the Cleveland Plan? We believe the Plan as written is a reasonable place to start, but would be a terrible place to end up. It needs work and IO stands ready to help any way we can.”

-30-

Denver Kills its Life Skills; Ohio Opens a New One

Denver's Board of Education killed White Hat Management's Life Skills yesterday. The city's superintendent showed guts in standing against Life Skills. From EdNews Colorado's story:

Wednesday, DPS Superintendent Tom Boasberg took the lead, arguing strongly and passionately that Life Skills’ weak performance violated its contract with DPS and state and district accountability standards. By any standard, including reasonable progress, Life Skills is a failure, Boasberg argued. Life Skills is the worst-performing alternative program in DPS and the third-worst in the state, he said.

“I think the record is very, very clear. Life Skills is a school that has gone from terrible to worse,” Boasberg said.

In Ohio, Life Skills are equally poor-performing. Only 10.8 percent of its children graduate, while other non-Life Skills dropout recovery schools graduate about 45 percent (not that that's a great rate either). Life Skills in Dayton is the worst-performing school in the state on the Performance Index score. It wasn't long ago that Life Skills diplomas weren't accepted by branches of the military.

Last year, Life Skills got $28 million in taxpayer money. They get paid just if the kids are enrolled. The kids never have to show up for a single class.

Yet because there are no standards for dropout recovery schools in this state (even though they've been sitting on a shelf since 2005), Life Skills cannot be closed the way Denver could close its Life Skills. Instead, Ohio's Department of Education recently approved another Life Skills in Warrensville Heights. Again, White Hat Management is run by David Brennan, who is the state's single largest Republican campaign contributor.

So it's not easy in any state to take on such political power. Colorado took a while to do what it did recently, as explained in the EdNews Colorado story.

The DPS board first voted to close the school in 2007, but the state board overruled that decision. The school, which opened in 2003, was granted a new, two-year charter in July 2010. The school applied for renewal last year, but the DPS board voted 4-3 last November to reject the renewal application, citing the school’s poor academic performance.

Despite this lengthy history of failure, the vote was only 4-3 with Republicans standing with Life Skills. One brave Republican member, Paul Lundeen, voted against Life Skills.

Will anyone in Ohio stand against these schools the way Denver's Boasberg and Lundeen did? Or will Ohio kids continue to be poorly served by these schools?

Dropout Recovery schools serve among the most important functions in the state. These are the the most at-risk kids in the system. These kids should be receiving the best services we have to offer.

Life Skills is clearly not that. When will someone in power take notice?

Survey: Teacher Job Satisfaction Lowest in Two Decades

The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher came out today and found teachers are at their lowest morale in more than two decades. The EdWeek story about the study attributed that to "likely as a consequence—at least in part—of the economic downturn and resulting cuts to education budgets."


One of the scariest portions of the study concluded that 29 percent of teachers expect to be out of the profession within 5 years -- up from 17 percent in 2009.


During this time of great fluctuation in education policy, we need teachers to be involved in the changes and feeling good about the direction their profession is heading. This survey indicates the opposite is happening.


Some have noted that recent events like the recent publication of student data by New York City and the higher and higher stakes being placed on these scores for teacher compensation have led to lower teacher morale.


Here's what the survey found:

While most (76%) teachers report that their school’s budget has decreased in the past 12 months, those with low job satisfaction are more likely than those with high job satisfaction to report this (81% vs. 70%). They are also more likely to report that there have been layoffs of classroom teachers (49% vs. 37%) or other school staff (66% vs. 49%) at their school, or that their school has reduced or eliminated arts or music programs (28% vs. 17%), afterschool programs (34% vs. 23%) or health or social services (31% vs. 23%). Teachers with low job satisfaction are also more likely to report that their school buildings and grounds have not been kept in clean or good condition (26% vs. 14%) or that educational technology and learning materials have not been kept up to date to meet student learning needs (39% vs. 28%).

 At the same time as these reductions in resources, many teachers report an increase in student and family needs, and teachers who are not very satisfied with their job are even more likely to have experienced these changes. Teachers with low job satisfaction are more likely than those with high job satisfaction to report that there has been an increase in the number of students and families needing health and social support services (70% vs. 56%), in the number of students coming to school hungry (40% vs. 30%), and in the number of students leaving school during the year to go to another school (22% vs. 12%) in the past 12 months.

In 2006, the survey found the following factors were significant in determining a teacher's level of job satisfaction:

Teacher is not assigned to classes that s/he feels unqualified to teach.

Teacher feels that his/her salary is fair for the work done.

Teacher has enough time for planning and grading.

School does not have problems with threats to teachers or staff by students.

School does not have problems with disorderly student behavior.

Teacher is treated as a professional by the community.

Teacher has adequate involvement in team building and problem-solving.

Teacher has adequate ability to influence policies that affect him/her.

Teacher has adequate time for classroom instruction.

Teacher has adequate ability to influence student promotion or retention.

Teacher has adequate involvement in shaping the school curriculum.

 

Again, involving teachers in the development of their profession will give them more job satisfaction and, therefore, a much greater opportunity to succeed. Rare is the successful professional who is dissatisfied with their job.


Of the 11 most important factors in teacher job satisfaction, 10 are non-economic and are instead focused on empowering teachers to have a say in their career development and workplace.


Let's hope policymakers take note as they propose overhauling this profession.

Income Disparity Widens Achievement Gap

EdWeek wrote another in a growing number of stories describing a large and important set of data showing that income gaps have spurred achievement gaps. As the lede on the story puts it:

"The fractious debate over how much schools can counteract poverty's impact on children is far from settled, but a recently published collection of research strongly suggests that until policymakers and educators confront deepening economic and social disparities, poor children will increasingly miss out on finding a path to upward social mobility."

Why is this so? The article explains other research that shows that:

... between birth and age 6, children from high-income families now spend an average of 1,300 more hours in "novel" places outside their homes, schools, and day-care centers than children from poor families, a trend documented by Meredith Phillips, an associate professor of public policy and sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles

There is something to be said for the idea that until we get serious about poverty, our schools in poor areas will continue to underperform on standardized tests. Just look at the near perfect correlation between test scores and poverty that places like the Shanker Institute have examined.

And even if we do address poverty and scores rise, the way Ohio has currently written its laws, the bottom 5 percent of scorers on the state's Performance Index score will be open for new Charter Schools to come in, and the bottom 10 percent of school buildings will have to have all their teachers re-tested.

There will always be a bottom 5 and 10 percent on the Performance Index score, even if that score is 90 or 100 (which is really high).

Poverty is such a powerful driver of student outcomes that even great teaching cannot overcome all of its pull and sway. Is it important to ensure as much great teaching as possible is happening in our schools? Absolutely.

It is even more important to ensure greater economic opportunities for folks in low-income areas. For even great teachers are only with kids for less than 1/3 of the day. For 2/3 of the day, kids in these areas face challenges many of us cannot even conceive. And until those are minimized, it seems an excruciatingly difficult, uphill battle for educators and children to fight and win.

Ohio's Missing the Target

In the Cincinnati Enquirer yesterday, Ohioans were reminded again of one of the last budget bill's more controversial education provisions -- the idea that every teacher in a building that rates in the bottom 10 percent of school districts on the Performance Index will have to be re-tested. Greg Mild over at Plunderbund examined this issue last year.

I have described the inherent problems with using the Performance Index score to rate things; namely, because they are so closely tied to demographics, it's almost impossible to say that the PI measures much other than demographics.

All one needs to do is look at what schools occupy the bottom 10 percent of school buildings. They are all urban schools or Charter Schools. That's it. No suburban districts. No rural districts. No village districts. All urban districts and Charters. Nearly half of all Charters rate in the bottom 10 percent of school buildings in this state. 30 percent of the state's Charter School money is sent in schools that rate in the bottom 10 percent of school buildings.

The top 10 percent of Ohio's school buildings are almost exclusively suburban. There are obvious exceptions, like Steubenville or John Hay Early College in Cleveland, or Walnut Hills High School in Cincinnati. But more than 90 percent of buildings in the top 10 are suburban. So does that mean that teachers in these buildings are all the greatest in the state? However, could the average teacher in Solon handle what the average teacher in Cleveland has to handle?

Again, using the state's logic, teachers in all the bottom rated schools are so incompetent they have to be re-tested. Even Sandi Jacobs of the National Center on Teacher Quality -- a big teacher quality organization -- said, “It seems like a blanket approach that doesn’t quite make sense.”

Here's another way to look at it: Either there's a problem with every teacher in schools that rate on the bottom 10 percent, or there's a problem with how the schools are rated.

Given the data, which is more likely? And why is the state banking so heavily on the least likely option? Especially when no other state has seen fit to do so?

Ohio, Feds Seem to Ignore Key RttT Measure on Charters

The National Alliance of Public Charter Schools put out a report today in which it analyzed the Race to the Top assessments produced by the U.S. Department of Education in January. NAPCS was looking, obviously, at the Charter School portions of the RttT USDOE analysis.

NAPCS didn't say a whole lot about Ohio's Charter School efforts outside of stating how many are involved in the RttT grant. They had tougher things to say about New York and other states' applications.

Again, Ohio's Charter School performance has been spotty, with some really top flight schools, but far more bad ones.

In fact, 149 Charters rank in the bottom 10 percent of all the 3,457 school buildings rated by the state on the Performance Index score -- a flawed measure to be sure, but one the state's coming to rely on more and more. That means that nearly 1/2 of the 304 Charter Schools rated by the Performance Index score rate in the bottom 10 percent of all school buildings on that measure. Yet those schools received more than $222 million in state money last year, according to the latest Annual Charter School Report from the Ohio Department of Education.

One of the provisions in RttT was to ensure the growth of high-performing Charter Schools. Yet of the $722 million the state spent last year on Charters, more than 30% was spent on schools that ranked in the bottom 10 percent of school buildings in the state.

Meanwhile, only 6. That's right. Six Charters rate in the top 10% of school buildings rated by the state on the Performance Index score. The state spends $7.4 million on those schools, or just about 1 percent of the amount the state spends on Charter Schools.

Why do I bring this us up in light of NAPCS' report? Because Ohio desperately needs to ensure the growth of high-quality Charters. However, neither the state nor the USDOE mentioned anything about state efforts to do so on the RttT review it did and NAPCS analyzed.

Massachusetts was the only other state NAPCS analyzed that had no response from either government agency about this key component of RttT. Ohio really needs RttT to start weeding out the failing Charters and ensure only really good ones remain.

We'll see if it will, though initial signs are not encouraging.

State Superintendent Outlines Ohio's NCLB Waiver

From Gongwer's report yesterday on Ohio State Superintendent of Public Instruction Stan Heffner's position on NCLB waivers.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Stan Heffner said Wednesday the state has filed its waiver from federal education requirements that were projected to mark 90% of Ohio schools as failures.

The Department of Education is among nearly 40 states that submitted waiver requests as of Tuesday with 11 of those approved through an earlier filing deadline, Mr. Heffner said.

The U.S. Department of Education offered the waiver from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind, in part because its requirement that all students be proficient in reading and math by 2014 is considered unrealistic.

In Ohio, the department estimated 90% of schools would fail to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress measure in the law that was created in 2001 and never revisited.

Superintendent Stan Heffner

"That is simply unacceptable because our schools are not failures, people are working hard and the system that has a design flaw needs to be addressed," Superintendent Heffner said at a Columbus news conference. "The provisions that were assumed in 2001 ... when you look at all of the assumptions, the world changed dramatically and society has changed dramatically."

Through the waiver expected take effect next school year, ODE will change the goal from 100% proficiency to a point half way between that level and where schools are currently achieving. That distance would be calculated for each student subpopulation as well and provide incentives to attain that by 2016, the superintendent said.

Ohio's waiver, if approved by the federal government after two months expected for review, would also require state legislative action to move the report card scoring system to one using letter grades rather than "excellent" through "emergency" titles. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, February 14, 2012)

Superintendent Heffner said he expects the legislation to be offered in March and could be part of the mid-biennial review being developed by the Kasich Administration. If approved, report cards issued this August would reflect the change.

The letter grades, which would be based on scores of 0-100, would be given in four areas: student performance (performance index), student progress (value-added), school and district performance (percent of indicators met) and gap closing (adequate yearly progress).

Districts would get an overall grade point average-type score that averages the four, Mr. Heffner said.

The waiver will also allow the state to reduce some of the reporting requirements and burdensome regulations required to access federal funds.

"Schools are supposed to have a single Continuous Improvement Plan," Mr. Heffner said. "Then on top of that to receive federal funds for various title programs, districts are asked to write specific separate plans.

"So we have an effect of having a requirement for a single plan that then gets confused by other federal requirements and redundancies so that nobody can really figure out exactly what really are the priorities of the schools."

Mr. Heffner said Ohio's proposal is to extend statewide a provision of federal law that allows small rural districts to have a single plan and to use funds as needed in line with the plan.

"If you're willing to stand up for higher standards and be accountable then we believe we should get out of your way, respect the fact that not all districts are exactly the same ... and give you the opportunity to tell us what your plans are, and if you are able to deliver on success of your plan then you should be allowed to continue these degrees of freedom," he said.

The waiver will work in tandem with Ohio's new academic content standards, which have been provided to schools but are not required to be implemented until 2014. The superintendent said schools often experience a couple years of lower results as they adjust to new systems.

"The waiver gives time for us to make this adjustment," he said.

The waiver also entails adding a "readiness grade" to report cards in a couple years. It will show the percentage of students in a district meeting current standards and the number projected to pass under the new standards.

Mr. Heffner said tests associated with the new standards will all be online. They will include standard types of questions in addition to "technology-enhanced" and "performance task" questions. Exam grades are expected to be available in 60 seconds rather than 60 days because of the technology.

"We think that the new system is actually going to let teachers actually teach again, and it's going to allow them to think in big terms about what the content standards are asking kids to know and be able to do," he said.

The plan received the endorsement of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, Ohio School Boards Association, Ohio Education Association, Ohio Federation of Teachers, Ohio Association of School Business Officials, Ohio Association of Elementary School Administrators, Ohio Association of Secondary School Administrators, Ohio Educational Service Center Association and Committee of Practitioners, according to ODE.

The revisions seem to make some sense; however, my concern is that the state's education groups, for obvious reasons, likely would accept this (or probably any) alternative to having 90 percent of districts in this state deemed a failure. There are serious issues with each of the measures the state will be using to judge districts.

Again, if you give me a district's demographic profile, I can predict what their Performance Index score will be in nearly 3/4 of the cases. Value added measures now only apply to certain grades and subjects, so it will encourage districts to put resources into those subjects and away from things like languages, arts, gifted and, depending on grade, sciences, social studies, etc. Percent of indicators met and AYP are both indicators that caused a lot of the need for NCLB waivers in the first place.

All this shows is just how tough it is to gauge district success. Heffner and others have told Ohioans since the latest round of report cards showed more than half of districts rate excellent or excellent with distinction that excellent is too easy to achieve in Ohio. It was rarely suggested by leaders that Ohio's districts could possibly be (gulp) better than perceptions, only that the report cards are too easy.

Of course, about half of Charters rate D or F on the report card, so it can't be that easy to be excellent, I suppose.

I wish Ohio would take this opportunity to do some revolutionary things on accountability, like judging districts on how they outperform (or underperform) their demographics, or develop a more comprehensive value-added measure across all grades and subjects so kids have more diverse educational expriences, or develop accountability measures that can measure how much kids enjoy learning (not just their score on a test they take on one day out of 180), or develop a measure of a district's creativity in the classroom, or sponsor research on techniques that can better match emerging Brain Science on how kids' brains physically work and match those techniques across districts.

There are so many opportunities for Ohio to lead the nation into a new era of accountability that focuses not as heavily on tests kids take once a year, but focuses instead on how well districts teach their kids how to learn and to love that journey.

This isn't to say scores shouldn't matter. They do at some level.

What I'm saying is they certainly aren't all that matters. As adults, kids forget what's on tests; they never forget the lessons. The more unforgettable lessons kids receive during their educational experience should be better accounted for than it is currently on state report cards, and I don't see this newly outlined system accounting for them any better than the old one.

And that's a shame.