One thing that's been noticably absent from the so-called "School Choice" debate has been the voice of parents who choose to send their children to traditional public schools. Perhaps that began to change yesterday as a group of Cincinnati-area parents marched on the statehouse, demanding that the state live up to its constitutional obligations.
I was a part of the news conference prior to the march, and I have to say I was impressed with the parents' enthusiasm and refusal to sit back and let the parents of the 6% of kids who attend Charter Schools have their voices heard while theirs remain silent. Again, 12% of the state's education funding goes to educate the 6% of children in Charter Schools. And the parents in Cincinnati, on average, see an $808 loss in state education money for each of their children because Charter Schools remove so much money from their district.
This is not an indictment of Charter Schools; it's an indictment of how the state's leaders have chosen to fund them.
These parents' demands are pretty simple (and should sound familiar): stop the state's overreliance on property taxes to pay for schools and develop a funding formula that properly accounts for the cost of an education.
There is little question the state needs to deliver property tax relief to overly burdened property owners. The Evidence Based Model would have required an increased commitment of about 1% of the state budget each year for 10 years. And property owners would have a decreased need for property taxes by about 13 mills, or about $400 per $100,000 home. All it would have required is increased commitment, not increased taxes.
I welcome the voices of the parents of Cincinnati and all around this state. For far more parents want to see their local schools improve, not abandoned to an alternative system.
Share it
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Curious Changes to New Report Card?
The Dispatch wrote a story yesterday about a new analysis of the state's proposed new report card that was necessitated by the state's waiver application from No Child Left Behind (a waiver it received like every other state). But something curious happened. While districts and schools did much worse than the previous iteration of the new system, one school did better: Wells Academy -- a traditional public school in Steubenville.
Why is this curious? Wells Academy was where Gov. Kasich gave his State of the State address this year. He cited it as a place where greatness happens despite very little money (Wells Academy in Steubenville has the highest Performance Index score in the state). But on the first iteration of the state's new accountability system, Wells went from an A+ to a B. Slightly embarrassing.
That caused some to question the validity of the new system. For if it rated the Wells Academy, which even Gov. Kasich said was doing great things, so poorly, how valid could it be?
Well, even though the new iteration says that only 3 traditional public schools perform at an A level, one of those is Wells Academy, which gets an A-. Isn't that curious?
The other 5 to get As are Charter Schools -- the first time ever that Ohio's Charter Schools outnumber traditional schools in the A category. Even though everyone seems to agree it's too easy to get an A in the current system, only a handful of Ohio's Charter Schools receive such grades. Now the state makes it nearly impossible to get an A with this new system and just about the same number of Charters get them?
Isn't that curious?
The system is no less dubious, by the way, just because Wells now ranks highly. Does anyone really think that only 3 of more than 3,000 traditional schools are performing at an A level? Really? Does that pass the smell test?
You certainly can make a strong case that the current system overrates districts. Are 92% of districts performing at an A or B level? No. Are only 49%, as this new iteration suggests? No.
And I know that more than 3 are performing at an A level.
This new iteration of the system is loathe to suggest the old system may have (gulp!) underrated a school or two. The state should develop a more accurate system, not try to prove how tough it is. If they develop a more accurate system, it's going to show underrated and overrated districts. The current iteration shows nothing but overrating going on.
Again, common sense tells you that just can't be right.
This all gets back to the issue with solely using tests to judge schools and districts. I can predict 7 out of 10 school districts' performance index scores given 5-6 demographic figures. There are districts that are outperforming their demographics tremendously, even though the scores don't show it.
It is possible for the state to give credit to districts with challenging demographics. Getting an 85 or 90 on the Performance Index Score is an A+ in Cleveland and would be an F in Upper Arlington or Hudson, for example.
Ohio has an opportunity to do some really good, sophisticated work in this area that shows where great things are happening despite extreme challenges and where not so great things are happening despite extreme advantages.
Let's hope the state doesn't create a ridiculous system where no school looks like it's doing anything good, especially as the state funds for education dry up. Nothing perpetuates a race to the bottom faster than budget cuts coupled with a huge increase in standards. Remember, when Massachusetts adopted tougher standards in the 1990s, $2 billion in additional state revenue followed them. Not so in Ohio.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter if Wells Academy's grade improves. What matters is that all schools are graded fairly. And this system does not do that.
Not yet anyway.
Why is this curious? Wells Academy was where Gov. Kasich gave his State of the State address this year. He cited it as a place where greatness happens despite very little money (Wells Academy in Steubenville has the highest Performance Index score in the state). But on the first iteration of the state's new accountability system, Wells went from an A+ to a B. Slightly embarrassing.
That caused some to question the validity of the new system. For if it rated the Wells Academy, which even Gov. Kasich said was doing great things, so poorly, how valid could it be?
Well, even though the new iteration says that only 3 traditional public schools perform at an A level, one of those is Wells Academy, which gets an A-. Isn't that curious?
The other 5 to get As are Charter Schools -- the first time ever that Ohio's Charter Schools outnumber traditional schools in the A category. Even though everyone seems to agree it's too easy to get an A in the current system, only a handful of Ohio's Charter Schools receive such grades. Now the state makes it nearly impossible to get an A with this new system and just about the same number of Charters get them?
Isn't that curious?
The system is no less dubious, by the way, just because Wells now ranks highly. Does anyone really think that only 3 of more than 3,000 traditional schools are performing at an A level? Really? Does that pass the smell test?
You certainly can make a strong case that the current system overrates districts. Are 92% of districts performing at an A or B level? No. Are only 49%, as this new iteration suggests? No.
And I know that more than 3 are performing at an A level.
This new iteration of the system is loathe to suggest the old system may have (gulp!) underrated a school or two. The state should develop a more accurate system, not try to prove how tough it is. If they develop a more accurate system, it's going to show underrated and overrated districts. The current iteration shows nothing but overrating going on.
Again, common sense tells you that just can't be right.
This all gets back to the issue with solely using tests to judge schools and districts. I can predict 7 out of 10 school districts' performance index scores given 5-6 demographic figures. There are districts that are outperforming their demographics tremendously, even though the scores don't show it.
It is possible for the state to give credit to districts with challenging demographics. Getting an 85 or 90 on the Performance Index Score is an A+ in Cleveland and would be an F in Upper Arlington or Hudson, for example.
Ohio has an opportunity to do some really good, sophisticated work in this area that shows where great things are happening despite extreme challenges and where not so great things are happening despite extreme advantages.
Let's hope the state doesn't create a ridiculous system where no school looks like it's doing anything good, especially as the state funds for education dry up. Nothing perpetuates a race to the bottom faster than budget cuts coupled with a huge increase in standards. Remember, when Massachusetts adopted tougher standards in the 1990s, $2 billion in additional state revenue followed them. Not so in Ohio.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter if Wells Academy's grade improves. What matters is that all schools are graded fairly. And this system does not do that.
Not yet anyway.
Cleveland Plan Weakened By Usual Suspects
According to today's Cleveland Plain Dealer story, the so-called Cleveland Plan's idea to have a public-private group sign off on Charters in Cleveland was weakened by the same folks in Columbus and elsewhere who have fought to keep Ohio the Wild West of Charter School sponsorship and accountability. From the PD story:
Oh, and it appears that under the Cleveland Plan, Charters will be able to receive local revenue on top of receiving more than double the per pupil amount from the state that their traditional school counterparts receive. By the way, I fully expect that provision to apply to current Charter Schools statewide in next year's budget.
I was encouraged to see an Ohio newspaper not located in Akron explain that Ohio's Charter School laws are way outside the norm nationally. Only Minnesota allows non-profits to sponsor Charter Schools like Ohio does, for example.
I eagerly await the language on this and the remainder of the Cleveland Plan, which is set to be voted on in a couple weeks.
I remain extremely concerned about the dangerous precedent of allowing Charters to collect local revenue without their state revenue being adjusted accordingly, just as traditional schools' state money is adjusted. I'm also concerned about this watered down version of the Transformation Alliance. Added to the fact that it wouldn't be able to do anything with eSchools, which (as I've mentioned earlier) take more Cleveland kids than any single Charter School in the district, I'm wondering whether the Alliance will have any impact on improving Charter School performance.
There remains hope in the Cleveland Plan. Ensuring all 3 and 4 year olds attend pre-school, while creating Early Learning Academies to support the early, incredibly important learning years, can really help kids succeed. However, with zero state property tax relief supporting this plan and forcing an even greater property tax burden on folks in a district that make a median salary of $22,600, I fear those great promises will never be realized.
But there's always hope.
The plan pushed by Jackson and the Cleveland school district originally called for a locally appointed panel of district, charter, community and business leaders to review applications for new charter schools in Cleveland to determine if they meet basic educational and financial standards, then block schools that don't.
After strong objections from charter supporters, the compromise between Jackson and legislators – the details of which are unclear while legislation is drafted – calls for the local panel and the Ohio Department of Education to review sponsors wanting to open schools in Cleveland to make sure they meet standards set by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers.
If the legislation passes in Columbus, all of the current sponsors of charter schools in Cleveland can continue starting schools for now, but will have to be reviewed using the national standards when their sponsor licenses with the state expire.This is a classic Ohio Charter School Lobby maneuver: weaken the law, then make current sponsors and Charters essentially exempt from even the weakened law. Amazing. This is what happened with eSchools and Dropout Recovery Schools (both of which are cash cows for Charter School megalith David Brennan). And it is a virtual certainty that any strengthening of Charter School laws will probably not apply to the 90% of Charter Schools in this state that currently do not rate in the top half of all school districts on the Performance Index Score. All traditional school districts lose kids and money to Charter Schools now, according to state data, so they should be compared accordingly.
Oh, and it appears that under the Cleveland Plan, Charters will be able to receive local revenue on top of receiving more than double the per pupil amount from the state that their traditional school counterparts receive. By the way, I fully expect that provision to apply to current Charter Schools statewide in next year's budget.
I was encouraged to see an Ohio newspaper not located in Akron explain that Ohio's Charter School laws are way outside the norm nationally. Only Minnesota allows non-profits to sponsor Charter Schools like Ohio does, for example.
"Cleveland is unusual in having nine different agencies approving charters in one city," said Greg Richmond, president of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. "Too many authorizers is not a good thing."
...
The Cleveland school district itself sponsors only six charter schools, five of which are managed by the Breakthrough charter organization.
That's a far cry from cities like Baltimore, where all 33 charter schools operating there were created through the school district. And Philadelphia, where all 80 were authorized by the school district and Chicago, whose 38 charter schools were all authorized through the school district.
Or consider New York City, which has three agencies authorizing and overseeing 122 charter schools – the district, the state department of education or the State University of New York.When you couple this sponsorship anomaly with the fact that the way Ohio funds Charter Schools means that kids in traditional public schools receive $235 less state money per pupil ($264 million total) because Charters divert so much state money from districts, and you see why Ohio has struggled so mightily to integrate its Charter Schools into the system.
I eagerly await the language on this and the remainder of the Cleveland Plan, which is set to be voted on in a couple weeks.
I remain extremely concerned about the dangerous precedent of allowing Charters to collect local revenue without their state revenue being adjusted accordingly, just as traditional schools' state money is adjusted. I'm also concerned about this watered down version of the Transformation Alliance. Added to the fact that it wouldn't be able to do anything with eSchools, which (as I've mentioned earlier) take more Cleveland kids than any single Charter School in the district, I'm wondering whether the Alliance will have any impact on improving Charter School performance.
There remains hope in the Cleveland Plan. Ensuring all 3 and 4 year olds attend pre-school, while creating Early Learning Academies to support the early, incredibly important learning years, can really help kids succeed. However, with zero state property tax relief supporting this plan and forcing an even greater property tax burden on folks in a district that make a median salary of $22,600, I fear those great promises will never be realized.
But there's always hope.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Cleveland Plan Deal Struck
It appears that the Legislature, Governor and Mayor have agreed to a deal to let the so-called Cleveland Plan move through the legislature next month, hamstringing the Mayor's efforts to pass a property tax levy that would pay for the plan. The details will be announced at a 3 p.m. news conference today.
As I have said before, Ohio's legislature has cut funding to Cleveland by about 15% relative to inflation since 2000 -- an amount that can't be explained by a reduction in students. In addition, because of how Ohio funds its Charter Schools, Cleveland gets $3 million a year less per pupil because Charter Schools remove so much state money from the district. Charter School children are the only kids in the state that get full state funding. All other children have their funding shared between state and local revenue (all kids get some federal money too).
It appears that the plan will allow Charter Schools to also collect local revenue. This is an incredibly dangerous provision for the future of the state's public schools. That's because the state will not reduce the amount the Charters get from the state to account for the additional funding stream this plan will generate.
Remember, we were told for years that the reason Charter Schools got more than twice as much per pupil state revenue as traditional schools is because they couldn't raise local revenue. Now that they will be able to (I know the language only allows this sharing in Clevleand, but does anyone really doubt that this won't be a central component of Gov. Kasich's education plan introduced next year?), the state will still allow them to collect the larger state amount PLUS local revenue. Any pretense that Charters are cheaper for taxpayers than traditional schools is officially out the window.
They'll be getting $7,109 per pupil from the state (traditionals get $3,390) PLUS local revenue PLUS federal revenue PLUS not having to adhere to about 200 regulations the traditional schools have to PLUS no busing. Again, only 23 of the 300+ Charters in this state would rank in the to 1/2 of all school districts on the state's Performance Index Score. And, according to Ohio Department of Education data, ALL school districts lose money and kids to charters now.
The Cleveland Plan has great hope within it. Universal Pre-School for all 3 and 4 year olds. Early Childhood Academies to reinforce the most important developmental years in kids' lives. More innovative school designs.
However, if the district fails to pass a levy in November (and even if it does), the likelihood of ANY of these provisions actually taking place is so small as to border on Fantasy Land.
I have to say that I am extremely concerned that these promises that have peer-reviewed evidence behind them demonstrating they will actually work will never happen. If they don't, then all the Cleveland Plan did was force extreme concessions by the Cleveland Teachers Union to accommodate an impossible fiscal structure created by state leaders and policies. Those concessions have very little peer-reviewed research behind them suggesting they will improve student outcomes.
I feel for Mayor Jackson. As someone who's had to deal with major education reform during tough economic times, I know exactly what he's going through -- one of few in the state who can.
However, it was the state, not Cleveland Municipal Schools, that put Jackson in this position. If Gov. Kasich believes in this plan as much as he says he does (he will attend today's 3 p.m. news conference), he should put his money where his mouth is and pay for it. My piece of advice to Jackson? turn to Kasich during the news conference and demand he restore all the money he cut to Cleveland in the last budget. There's a state budget surplus, so he could do that.
For that is the only way, I fear, that the children of Cleveland will receive ANY benefit from this plan.
As I have said before, Ohio's legislature has cut funding to Cleveland by about 15% relative to inflation since 2000 -- an amount that can't be explained by a reduction in students. In addition, because of how Ohio funds its Charter Schools, Cleveland gets $3 million a year less per pupil because Charter Schools remove so much state money from the district. Charter School children are the only kids in the state that get full state funding. All other children have their funding shared between state and local revenue (all kids get some federal money too).
It appears that the plan will allow Charter Schools to also collect local revenue. This is an incredibly dangerous provision for the future of the state's public schools. That's because the state will not reduce the amount the Charters get from the state to account for the additional funding stream this plan will generate.
Remember, we were told for years that the reason Charter Schools got more than twice as much per pupil state revenue as traditional schools is because they couldn't raise local revenue. Now that they will be able to (I know the language only allows this sharing in Clevleand, but does anyone really doubt that this won't be a central component of Gov. Kasich's education plan introduced next year?), the state will still allow them to collect the larger state amount PLUS local revenue. Any pretense that Charters are cheaper for taxpayers than traditional schools is officially out the window.
They'll be getting $7,109 per pupil from the state (traditionals get $3,390) PLUS local revenue PLUS federal revenue PLUS not having to adhere to about 200 regulations the traditional schools have to PLUS no busing. Again, only 23 of the 300+ Charters in this state would rank in the to 1/2 of all school districts on the state's Performance Index Score. And, according to Ohio Department of Education data, ALL school districts lose money and kids to charters now.
The Cleveland Plan has great hope within it. Universal Pre-School for all 3 and 4 year olds. Early Childhood Academies to reinforce the most important developmental years in kids' lives. More innovative school designs.
However, if the district fails to pass a levy in November (and even if it does), the likelihood of ANY of these provisions actually taking place is so small as to border on Fantasy Land.
I have to say that I am extremely concerned that these promises that have peer-reviewed evidence behind them demonstrating they will actually work will never happen. If they don't, then all the Cleveland Plan did was force extreme concessions by the Cleveland Teachers Union to accommodate an impossible fiscal structure created by state leaders and policies. Those concessions have very little peer-reviewed research behind them suggesting they will improve student outcomes.
I feel for Mayor Jackson. As someone who's had to deal with major education reform during tough economic times, I know exactly what he's going through -- one of few in the state who can.
However, it was the state, not Cleveland Municipal Schools, that put Jackson in this position. If Gov. Kasich believes in this plan as much as he says he does (he will attend today's 3 p.m. news conference), he should put his money where his mouth is and pay for it. My piece of advice to Jackson? turn to Kasich during the news conference and demand he restore all the money he cut to Cleveland in the last budget. There's a state budget surplus, so he could do that.
For that is the only way, I fear, that the children of Cleveland will receive ANY benefit from this plan.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Ohio House Committee Ignores Research, Passes Massive Unfunded Mandate
There is little question that two things will be most helpful in helping our children succeed in school:
1) Early intervention and educational services, especially among the most vulnerable of our children, and
2) Getting kids reading at grade level by 3rd grade.
Ohio, as has been reported several times, is now dead last in the country on early childhood education funding. And now it's trying to force districts to catch kids up by 3rd grade or be forced to retain them until they are proficient -- all while slashing state money to education precipitously.
There is little question that telling districts to do this is a classic unfunded mandate. In fact, given the state's recent divestment from education, I would call this a De-funded Mandate.
At least with the Evidence Based Model, there was a promise the state made to tie any requirements to the funding; none of the elements would have been required until the funding was available. That way districts, schools, teachers and children at least had a chance to meet the goals.
However, all I remember hearing during that debate was how it was an unfunded mandate, even though there was a promise of funding made. On this 3rd Grade Reading Guarantee, there's not even a pretense that the state will be providing any additional property tax relief to help districts meet this goal. And no one is bringing up the unfunded mandate issue, at least not in today's Dispatch story.
The only opposition was that massive numbers of kids will have to be held back under the House's version of the bill that passed yesterday. Not a peep was made about what a massive, untenable unfunded mandate this bill will be. Can you imagine holding back entire classrooms for potentially years? Where exactly will all these kids go? Will districts have to build new buildings just for 3rd Grade hold backs? Has anyone even thought about this? Or do they just want to seem tough on standards?
At least the Ohio Senate relaxed the standard a bit, requiring that kids be held back only if they're in the lowest tier on reading. The Senate recognized the logistical and policy nightmare this all or nothing approach could produce.
As I have said before, there is ample evidence that holding kids back will actually increase the chances of the children dropping out of school at some point -- completely undoing any good that the 3rd Grade Reading Guarantee hopes to do, which should greatly alarm education policymakers, given this policy's potential to explode the grade retention rates of our kids. A small sampling (with links to the peer-reviewed articles from whence they came)
As was pointed out in 2001 in an article published in the peer-reviewed School Psychology Review, which examined 100 years of grade retention research,
Not a perfect solution, but it at least tried to fund that goal of catching kids up. And it did so by encouraging rather than punishing districts. Something I remember about attracting bees with honey, or a Fable I read my children about the Sun and the Wind.
Anyway, all this tough talk about standards should be met with equally tough talk about putting your money where your mouth is. If you want kids to catch up, you should be willing to pay for it, or at least restore some of the nearly $3 billion in education funding cuts made in the last budget. One of the toughest and most eloquent thinkers on standards-based reform is former Massachusetts Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll, who works with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
However, when he instituted those reforms in the 1990s, the state of Massachusetts increased funding to education by about $2 billion, which he acknowledged during a joint appearance we had together during the House Bill 1 debate. That was actually more than what the EBM would have provided over 10 years, given inflation.
Standards only work if you actually provide the necessary resources to achieve them. Look at Major League Baseball. When is the last time the New York Yankees were not considered a World Series contender?
Standards alone, without financial commitment, is simply political rhetoric. And our kids will suffer the consequences for all that bluster and empty promise.
Since we all want our kids to reach the World Series, let's be the Yankees, not the Royals.
1) Early intervention and educational services, especially among the most vulnerable of our children, and
2) Getting kids reading at grade level by 3rd grade.
Ohio, as has been reported several times, is now dead last in the country on early childhood education funding. And now it's trying to force districts to catch kids up by 3rd grade or be forced to retain them until they are proficient -- all while slashing state money to education precipitously.
There is little question that telling districts to do this is a classic unfunded mandate. In fact, given the state's recent divestment from education, I would call this a De-funded Mandate.
At least with the Evidence Based Model, there was a promise the state made to tie any requirements to the funding; none of the elements would have been required until the funding was available. That way districts, schools, teachers and children at least had a chance to meet the goals.
However, all I remember hearing during that debate was how it was an unfunded mandate, even though there was a promise of funding made. On this 3rd Grade Reading Guarantee, there's not even a pretense that the state will be providing any additional property tax relief to help districts meet this goal. And no one is bringing up the unfunded mandate issue, at least not in today's Dispatch story.
The only opposition was that massive numbers of kids will have to be held back under the House's version of the bill that passed yesterday. Not a peep was made about what a massive, untenable unfunded mandate this bill will be. Can you imagine holding back entire classrooms for potentially years? Where exactly will all these kids go? Will districts have to build new buildings just for 3rd Grade hold backs? Has anyone even thought about this? Or do they just want to seem tough on standards?
At least the Ohio Senate relaxed the standard a bit, requiring that kids be held back only if they're in the lowest tier on reading. The Senate recognized the logistical and policy nightmare this all or nothing approach could produce.
As I have said before, there is ample evidence that holding kids back will actually increase the chances of the children dropping out of school at some point -- completely undoing any good that the 3rd Grade Reading Guarantee hopes to do, which should greatly alarm education policymakers, given this policy's potential to explode the grade retention rates of our kids. A small sampling (with links to the peer-reviewed articles from whence they came)
"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 grades and attendance." http://aer.sagepub.com/content/31/4/729.short
"We find that retention among younger students does not affect the likelihood of high school completion, but that retaining low-achieving eighth grade students in elementary school substantially increases the probability that these students will drop out of high school." http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25760170?uid=3739840&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47699012250687
"This article examines the extent to which test-based grade retention policies comply with standards for fair and appropriate test use based on norms established by the professional testing community. The results of the investigation indicate that test-based retention policies potentially violate several of the professional standards." http://edr.sagepub.com/content/39/2/110.short
"... grade failure leads to substantial dropout and lower educational attainment even four to five years after grade failure occurred." http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/REST_a_00165
"In the third grade, retention did not improve achievement gains. But the report finds significant negative effects of retention at the sixth grade. After two years, the achievement gains of retained students are about 6 percent lower than those of comparable promoted students. Additionally, close to 20 percent of retained third and sixth graders were placed in special education within two years of the retention decision at a rate three times that of other low-achieving students." (this quote came from the news release about the research located here: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/040407.retention.shtml.)
As was pointed out in 2001 in an article published in the peer-reviewed School Psychology Review, which examined 100 years of grade retention research,
Again, that was written 11 years ago, yet could as well have been produced today given its prescience."... rather than encouraging further research regarding the relative efficacy of grade retention and social promotion, it seems prudent to move beyond the question “to retain or not to retain?” as we enter the new millennium. In isolation, neither social promotion nor grade retention will solve our nation’s educational ills nor facilitate the academic success of children. Instead attention must be directed toward alternative remedial strategies. Researchers, educators, administrators, and legislators should commit to implement and investigate specific remedial intervention strategies designed to facilitate socioemotional adjustment and educational achievement of our nation’s youth." Jimerson, S. Meta-analysis of Grade Retention Research: Implications for Practice in the 21st Century, School Psychology Review, 2001, Volume 30, No. 3, pp. 420-437
I think ensuring kids are reading at grade level by 3rd Grade at the latest is a laudable and necessary goal. But once again, Ohio has hamfisted this thing into an untenable unfunded mandate, with zero expectation that any property tax relief will be forthcoming to assist districts (who have seen their state money cut 15% relative to inflation since the above article was written).
And, of course, this policy will put the largest burdens on districts that face the greatest challenges. As I've mentioned before, it is dangerous to base policies like this that are so black and white and heavy handed purely upon test scores. For when about 3 out of 4 districts' scores can be predicted given their demographic make up, is the test really measuring excellence? Or is it measuring a district's demographics?
Here's what I proposed in my school funding reform plan: kids who scored in the lowest tier of the Kindergarten readiness assessment would receive weighted funding through Eighth Grade, with the additional revenue going specifically to reading improvement. If the child was then on grade by Fourth Grade, the district would receive a bonus payment as a reward; however, the child would keep receiving the reading help they needed through Eighth Grade. For it does no good to catch kids up, then let them slip back again, which No Child Left Behind has taught us is a danger.
Here's what I proposed in my school funding reform plan: kids who scored in the lowest tier of the Kindergarten readiness assessment would receive weighted funding through Eighth Grade, with the additional revenue going specifically to reading improvement. If the child was then on grade by Fourth Grade, the district would receive a bonus payment as a reward; however, the child would keep receiving the reading help they needed through Eighth Grade. For it does no good to catch kids up, then let them slip back again, which No Child Left Behind has taught us is a danger.
Not a perfect solution, but it at least tried to fund that goal of catching kids up. And it did so by encouraging rather than punishing districts. Something I remember about attracting bees with honey, or a Fable I read my children about the Sun and the Wind.
Anyway, all this tough talk about standards should be met with equally tough talk about putting your money where your mouth is. If you want kids to catch up, you should be willing to pay for it, or at least restore some of the nearly $3 billion in education funding cuts made in the last budget. One of the toughest and most eloquent thinkers on standards-based reform is former Massachusetts Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll, who works with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
However, when he instituted those reforms in the 1990s, the state of Massachusetts increased funding to education by about $2 billion, which he acknowledged during a joint appearance we had together during the House Bill 1 debate. That was actually more than what the EBM would have provided over 10 years, given inflation.
Standards only work if you actually provide the necessary resources to achieve them. Look at Major League Baseball. When is the last time the New York Yankees were not considered a World Series contender?
Standards alone, without financial commitment, is simply political rhetoric. And our kids will suffer the consequences for all that bluster and empty promise.
Since we all want our kids to reach the World Series, let's be the Yankees, not the Royals.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Close Advisor to Democratic State Rep. Wants Charter
Ernie Tarle, who has been attached at the hip with Democratic State Rep. Zach Milkovich, wants to open a new Charter School in Akron. Mr. Tarle is quite a controversial figure in Akron, having been the first Akron City Councilman ever recalled by voters. He currently has charges pending in Akron Municipal Court stemming from some property he owns, according to the Beacon Journal story. He also filed Chapter 7 last year after a real estate deal in Florida went belly up.
While he's got significant hurdles to overcome (start up money, zoning clearance, etc.), let's assume this thing goes forward for argument's sake. What's this mean for Akron?
He wants to pay teachers $32,000 (plus $3,000 bonus) to work longer hours and more days. He said he'd want them to be part of the Akron Education Association. The school would use the so-called "No Excuses" model of Charter School, which the Beacon Journal spent space explaining here. The model has received recognition lately of being the only Charter Model that appears to boost student achievement, which was repeated in the Beacon Journal story.
Others suggest that the most successful part of the "No Excuses" model is the increased time spent in the classroom. And it is that which matters most for these schools' success. Of course, applying that to traditional public schools would involve significant investment, unless teachers would be willing to get their pay cut in half to take on more work. Not likely.
KIPP schools are the most famous utilizers of the so-called "No Excuses" approach to education. However, the KIPP school in Columbus (from which Tarle has tapped his principal) has struggled, initially only rating a C on the state report card, which improved to a B this year (though it would drop back to a C under the state's proposed new report card). The school's performance index score of 80 places it almost square in the middle of the pack of all Charter Schools, and is worse than more than 86% of all school buildings in the state.
KIPP officials in Ohio complained mightily about not being able to use Teach for America personnel, which they have done throughout the rest of the country (the TFA and KIPP founders are married to each other). As the Washington Post's Jay Matthews put it in 2008:
Teach for America has received a special carve out from the Ohio General Assembly and Governor, which means that their instructors won't have to adhere to the same state teacher certification requirements that all other teachers do. Expect many to be placed in KIPP.
It was encouraging to see that Tarle is approaching the right Charter School folks here, especially Marshall Emerson III, who started e-Prep in Cleveland -- one of the best Charters in the state.
Unfortunately, Mr. Tarle received his sponsorship from the Ohio Council of Community Schools in Toledo, whose track record of performance is quite spotty, having sponsored many of David Brennan's schools (like Life Skills) and the Ohio Virtual Academy (run by K-12, Inc.) and Brennan's online school, OHDELA. In other words, the OCCS is comfortable having for-profit operators run its schools, regardless of the success those schools have (Life Skills' graduation rates are 10.8%, OHVA and OHDELA's graduation rates are about 40%).
Let's hope that Tarle listens more closely to Mr. Emerson and not OCCS. For as Emerson himself put it in the Beacon story:
Perhaps Tarle has an opportunity here to help change the perception of Charter Schools in this state. If he goes to the Board and says, "I want to start a Charter School, but don't want to hurt the kids who remain in the district, so I will return any state revenue I receive that would cut the per pupil amount Akron Public receives."
My guess is he won't, though given what I know of Tarle (I got to know him a little bit during the campaigns of the last couple years), I wouldn't be stunned if he did something like that. He is quite the free spirit.
If he did, wouldn't that be fascinating? A Charter School operator who doesn't want to hurt the Public Schools, but assist them?
Tarle has a chance to do some real good here. Let's hope he does.
While he's got significant hurdles to overcome (start up money, zoning clearance, etc.), let's assume this thing goes forward for argument's sake. What's this mean for Akron?
He wants to pay teachers $32,000 (plus $3,000 bonus) to work longer hours and more days. He said he'd want them to be part of the Akron Education Association. The school would use the so-called "No Excuses" model of Charter School, which the Beacon Journal spent space explaining here. The model has received recognition lately of being the only Charter Model that appears to boost student achievement, which was repeated in the Beacon Journal story.
Others suggest that the most successful part of the "No Excuses" model is the increased time spent in the classroom. And it is that which matters most for these schools' success. Of course, applying that to traditional public schools would involve significant investment, unless teachers would be willing to get their pay cut in half to take on more work. Not likely.
KIPP schools are the most famous utilizers of the so-called "No Excuses" approach to education. However, the KIPP school in Columbus (from which Tarle has tapped his principal) has struggled, initially only rating a C on the state report card, which improved to a B this year (though it would drop back to a C under the state's proposed new report card). The school's performance index score of 80 places it almost square in the middle of the pack of all Charter Schools, and is worse than more than 86% of all school buildings in the state.
KIPP officials in Ohio complained mightily about not being able to use Teach for America personnel, which they have done throughout the rest of the country (the TFA and KIPP founders are married to each other). As the Washington Post's Jay Matthews put it in 2008:
KIPP schools without TFA"are making good progress, but they have made clear to me it is much harder for them to find the kind of teachers who can adjust to the KIPP system when they do not have TFA teachers in their cities."
Teach for America has received a special carve out from the Ohio General Assembly and Governor, which means that their instructors won't have to adhere to the same state teacher certification requirements that all other teachers do. Expect many to be placed in KIPP.
It was encouraging to see that Tarle is approaching the right Charter School folks here, especially Marshall Emerson III, who started e-Prep in Cleveland -- one of the best Charters in the state.
Unfortunately, Mr. Tarle received his sponsorship from the Ohio Council of Community Schools in Toledo, whose track record of performance is quite spotty, having sponsored many of David Brennan's schools (like Life Skills) and the Ohio Virtual Academy (run by K-12, Inc.) and Brennan's online school, OHDELA. In other words, the OCCS is comfortable having for-profit operators run its schools, regardless of the success those schools have (Life Skills' graduation rates are 10.8%, OHVA and OHDELA's graduation rates are about 40%).
Let's hope that Tarle listens more closely to Mr. Emerson and not OCCS. For as Emerson himself put it in the Beacon story:
“A lot of people have the right intentions in Ohio when they start charter schools, but let’s be honest, most of them are crap ... So I think that he’s doing the right thing. He’s doing his diligence. He’s visiting the right programs, and I believe he has his heart in the right place.”According to the Beacon Journal story, Tarle is going to approach the Akron school board about this. It is a dubious proposition to seek a seal of approval from a district that loses $7.5 million per year because Charter Schools cut their per pupil state aid so much. It is tough to square Tarle's statement here:
“Helping inner-city kids to get the education and a real chance in life is the best thing I can think to do and that’s why I’m here.”with the fact that, because of how the state funds Charters, Tarle's Charter School would effectively diminish the educational opportunities for "inner-city kids to get the education and a real chance in life" who remain in the Akron Public Schools.
Perhaps Tarle has an opportunity here to help change the perception of Charter Schools in this state. If he goes to the Board and says, "I want to start a Charter School, but don't want to hurt the kids who remain in the district, so I will return any state revenue I receive that would cut the per pupil amount Akron Public receives."
My guess is he won't, though given what I know of Tarle (I got to know him a little bit during the campaigns of the last couple years), I wouldn't be stunned if he did something like that. He is quite the free spirit.
If he did, wouldn't that be fascinating? A Charter School operator who doesn't want to hurt the Public Schools, but assist them?
Tarle has a chance to do some real good here. Let's hope he does.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
State Data: Charters Cost Districts Big Money
The Ohio Department of Education released its most up-to-date school finance data Friday that shows Charter Schools costing districts big money, while thoroughly de-bunking the myth that the state money simply "follows the child" to the Charter School. The data don't include losses to Voucher programs or Open Enrollment, which also dramatically affect district bottom lines.
I have posted the spreadsheet here. The raw data comes from the Department, while the per pupil calculations are my own.
All tolled, the per pupil cut districts take after Charters get their payments costs them $264 million in direct state payments. This means that the $771 million now leaving districts for Charters removes so much state money it actually reduces the per pupil amount the state has to provide for the kids who remain at the traditional schools. In Ohio, only 23 of the more than 300 Charters would rate in the top half of all school districts on the Performance Index Score. According to the data released Friday, all districts lose at least some children to Charter Schools.
What these data demonstrate is that the $771 million isn't simply a shift in funding from one system to another, with districts receiving roughly the same per pupil money from the state, just for fewer pupils. That $771 million effectively eats into districts' bottom lines both in the aggregate and the per pupil level.
Some amazing figures: After Charters take their money, districts, on average, are left with $3,390 per pupil in state money to educate the children that remain. What do Charters receive from the state? $7,109 per pupil. That's a nearly 110% greater amount than districts end up receiving. Even without counting the Charter deduction, districts only get $3,625 per pupil from the state.
Once again, Charters pay their teachers half of what districts pay, don't have to adhere to about 200 different regulations and don't have to bus children. So their costs, at least in theory, shouldn't be nearly as much as districts'.
There are a few districts where Charters end up helping their bottom lines, though it is never enough to overcome the amount those districts transfer to Charters as part of the $771 million transferred to Charters from Districts. So Charters end up still costing these districts significant dollars, even though the districts' per pupil amount increases from the state.
The total amount "saved" in those 38 districts is $2.28 million -- over $1.5 million of which is "saved" in East Cleveland alone. Eliminate East Cleveland (which still loses $4 million a year to Charters), and the total is $693,446. By way of scale, those districts lose $11 million to direct Charter transfers. The districts' average "savings" is a little more than $18,000 per district. That's not $18,000 per pupil. That's $18,000 total. In no case did the per pupil "savings" overcome the amount directly transferred by the state from the district to the Charters.
As for the 572 districts where Charter losses cause a drop in per pupil funding, districts lose, on average, $465,825 due to this per pupil cut. Columbus loses more than $50 million simply because Charters cause such a steep drop in their per pupil funding. Akron, which is facing a $24 million deficit and recently decided to permanently cut 139 teaching jobs to deal with it, loses $7.5 million thanks to Charter Schools removing so much money it slashes the per pupil amount coming from the state. Youngstown, which is facing similar cuts, loses $2.5 million for this reason.
Cleveland, which is seeking to allow Charters to collect local revenue on top of the large per pupil state amount they receive, loses $3 million (about the amount they want Charters to get in local property taxes, ironically) because of the cut in per pupil state revenue caused by losses to Charter Schools. And Westerville, whose citizens are seeking to undo the levy that passed this March, loses $3.1 million a year because Charters remove so much money they severely cut the per pupil amount coming from the state.
I have said this before and I will say it again. And again. And again. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of Charter Schools -- small incubators of innovation and creativity that can help mold and shape great techniques that can be scaled up to benefit all children.
I am opposed to the way Ohio funds these things because the state is valuing a parent's choice to send a child to a Charter School more than twice as much as a parent's choice to send a child to a traditional public school.
When Charters were brought to this state in 1998, Ohioans were told they'd be better and cheaper. Instead, they are generally performing worse (with a few noteworthy exceptions), end up costing the state more than twice as much per pupil, and devastate the bottom lines of school districts, forcing their educators to breathe in Space. This has especially been problematic since the end of the DeRolph school funding case, as can be seen here.
If this was simply a case of money following children, there would be no per pupil cut in districts' state money. Then we'd be talking about more nuance when it came to these Charter deductions -- arguments like, "while it doesn't hurt the per pupil figure, it still removes millions from districts who have to keep lights on, buses rolling and teachers and support staff paid." Instead, the argument is simple: Charter Schools remove so much money from school districts' bottom line, that nearly every kid who remains at the traditional school receives less support from the state than they otherwise would.
Charter Schools, thanks to this funding scheme, negatively impact the education of nearly every child who is not attending Charter Schools.
This is no longer a problem just for districts where Charters are located. This is a problem for every district, every child and every parent in the state.
For in Ohio, money does not follow the child; it follows the power.
Does anyone in Columbus notice the canary has stopped singing?
I have posted the spreadsheet here. The raw data comes from the Department, while the per pupil calculations are my own.
All tolled, the per pupil cut districts take after Charters get their payments costs them $264 million in direct state payments. This means that the $771 million now leaving districts for Charters removes so much state money it actually reduces the per pupil amount the state has to provide for the kids who remain at the traditional schools. In Ohio, only 23 of the more than 300 Charters would rate in the top half of all school districts on the Performance Index Score. According to the data released Friday, all districts lose at least some children to Charter Schools.
What these data demonstrate is that the $771 million isn't simply a shift in funding from one system to another, with districts receiving roughly the same per pupil money from the state, just for fewer pupils. That $771 million effectively eats into districts' bottom lines both in the aggregate and the per pupil level.
Some amazing figures: After Charters take their money, districts, on average, are left with $3,390 per pupil in state money to educate the children that remain. What do Charters receive from the state? $7,109 per pupil. That's a nearly 110% greater amount than districts end up receiving. Even without counting the Charter deduction, districts only get $3,625 per pupil from the state.
Once again, Charters pay their teachers half of what districts pay, don't have to adhere to about 200 different regulations and don't have to bus children. So their costs, at least in theory, shouldn't be nearly as much as districts'.
There are a few districts where Charters end up helping their bottom lines, though it is never enough to overcome the amount those districts transfer to Charters as part of the $771 million transferred to Charters from Districts. So Charters end up still costing these districts significant dollars, even though the districts' per pupil amount increases from the state.
The total amount "saved" in those 38 districts is $2.28 million -- over $1.5 million of which is "saved" in East Cleveland alone. Eliminate East Cleveland (which still loses $4 million a year to Charters), and the total is $693,446. By way of scale, those districts lose $11 million to direct Charter transfers. The districts' average "savings" is a little more than $18,000 per district. That's not $18,000 per pupil. That's $18,000 total. In no case did the per pupil "savings" overcome the amount directly transferred by the state from the district to the Charters.
As for the 572 districts where Charter losses cause a drop in per pupil funding, districts lose, on average, $465,825 due to this per pupil cut. Columbus loses more than $50 million simply because Charters cause such a steep drop in their per pupil funding. Akron, which is facing a $24 million deficit and recently decided to permanently cut 139 teaching jobs to deal with it, loses $7.5 million thanks to Charter Schools removing so much money it slashes the per pupil amount coming from the state. Youngstown, which is facing similar cuts, loses $2.5 million for this reason.
Cleveland, which is seeking to allow Charters to collect local revenue on top of the large per pupil state amount they receive, loses $3 million (about the amount they want Charters to get in local property taxes, ironically) because of the cut in per pupil state revenue caused by losses to Charter Schools. And Westerville, whose citizens are seeking to undo the levy that passed this March, loses $3.1 million a year because Charters remove so much money they severely cut the per pupil amount coming from the state.
I have said this before and I will say it again. And again. And again. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of Charter Schools -- small incubators of innovation and creativity that can help mold and shape great techniques that can be scaled up to benefit all children.
I am opposed to the way Ohio funds these things because the state is valuing a parent's choice to send a child to a Charter School more than twice as much as a parent's choice to send a child to a traditional public school.
When Charters were brought to this state in 1998, Ohioans were told they'd be better and cheaper. Instead, they are generally performing worse (with a few noteworthy exceptions), end up costing the state more than twice as much per pupil, and devastate the bottom lines of school districts, forcing their educators to breathe in Space. This has especially been problematic since the end of the DeRolph school funding case, as can be seen here.
If this was simply a case of money following children, there would be no per pupil cut in districts' state money. Then we'd be talking about more nuance when it came to these Charter deductions -- arguments like, "while it doesn't hurt the per pupil figure, it still removes millions from districts who have to keep lights on, buses rolling and teachers and support staff paid." Instead, the argument is simple: Charter Schools remove so much money from school districts' bottom line, that nearly every kid who remains at the traditional school receives less support from the state than they otherwise would.
Charter Schools, thanks to this funding scheme, negatively impact the education of nearly every child who is not attending Charter Schools.
This is no longer a problem just for districts where Charters are located. This is a problem for every district, every child and every parent in the state.
For in Ohio, money does not follow the child; it follows the power.
Does anyone in Columbus notice the canary has stopped singing?
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Teacher Appreciation: Cut Teacher Jobs
This week's Teacher Appreciation Week. So I found it horribly ironic that this was the week both Akron and Youngstown (I'm from the Akron area and my wife's from the Youngstown area, so these kind of hit home for us) announced massive teacher cuts in order to plug budget deficits caused by the state's divestment from education funding.
What struck me about these stories (as well as the other similar announcements in Cleveland and elsewhere) is how state lawmakers and officials are getting away with almost zero accountability in this whole trend. In the last budget, the state cut education funding (formula and non-formula) by nearly $3 billion in total, according to the Education Tax Policy Institute. Yet nowhere in the stories about Akron and Youngstown is this mentioned by officials in either location, except as a passing mention of generic budget cuts being part of the problem.
Remember, in HB 1 from 2009, Youngstown was set to receive an additional $33.8 million in state aid for the next 10 years, Akron $64.5 million. And that was a mere 3 years ago. What a difference a few years can make.
Just in formula money, Akron was cut $14.7 million last budget. Youngstown was cut $5.9 million. And that doesn't count non-formula cuts. Akron's budget deficit is $24 million. They will have to eliminate 139 teachers to save $13.6 million, according to the Akron Beacon Journal story. And those cuts will happen regardless of whether the people pass a levy in November. Those jobs in Akron are gone forever, barring a crisis of conscience from the state. They aren't even coming back if the district gets everything it wants at the bargaining table this year.
Is it a coincidence that the amount Akron's trying to save is just about the amount the state cut in the district's formula aid? How about Youngstown, which is eliminating more than 70 jobs, including teachers, to save $4.1 million? Again, the state could have even cut, just not as deep, and Youngstown could have avoided the need to eliminate these jobs.
And does anyone else find it ironic that these cuts were necessitated by a budget that was called "The Jobs Budget"? The very definition of misnomer.
Anyway, the jobs are just a part of what the fallout will be. Here's the non-job cuts from Akron:
If one ever wanted to permanently eliminate public schools, I would think a great way to do that would be to base accountability on tests (which are closely aligned with demographics and cost money to de-couple the results from those demographics), cut funding, then raise standards higher and higher, forcing districts to breathe in space.
When you put together the state superintendent's recent statement that he wants to have kids tested more frequently, while the state cuts nearly $3 billion in cuts and the state develops new district report cards that knock 85% of school districts lower than they are rated today, one begins to wonder if that isn't the current goal.
I'm sure the districts will make do. If there's a group of professionals who have learned how to do more with less recently, it's teachers and schools. But at some point, there's no more blood to squeeze. As former Ohio Senate President Bill Harris put it: you can't cut too much before you cut the quick. Yet perhaps that's the point. Not only are revenues to districts being cut, but according to new data released from the Ohio Department of Education, the state, on average, sends out $7,100 per pupil to Charter Schools, which leaves districts with $3,390 per pupil with which to educate the same child.
So districts are being cut by the state on their top line number, AND their bottom line number.
Yet in both these stories, I was most concerned about the districts' comments. They are trying to simply make it work. No anger. No marches on Columbus. Where's the outrage?
Don't districts know there's about a $250 million budget surplus at the state? Or that there's enough potential revenue from Ohio fracking to produce a permanent school fund that could provide the equivalent of about the amount the lottery provides every year if the state simply adopted Texas' extraction fees? Are they even trying to have some of their funding restored so kids don't lose extracurriculars in the most important educational years? How about fighting so kids don't have class sizes in the 30s in the early grades when the evidence suggests that 13-17:1 class sizes in the early grades can double the likelihood of poor children graduating high school?
Instead, here's what Youngstown School Board President Lock Beachum told the Vindicator about that district's proposed cuts:
The hope lies with the teachers. That's the message I wanted to convey on Teacher Appreciation Week. My mom just taught her last class last week as a professor at Hiram College. She joins my dad in the ranks of the "retired" teachers. If there's a finer examination of what makes a great teacher than my father's love letter to my mother here, then I've got nothing for you.
Of course, the great ones never really retire, though. Anyone who knows a teacher knows that. And teachers will continue doing the best they can, even if it means spending more and more of their own money to provide what kids need. They will continue teaching, even if politicians try harder and harder to make that impossible. They will continue being the only adults in many children's lives who actually help them achieve their dreams, or even dream at all. They will continue to advocate and fight passionately for their kids' needs.
More folks are recognizing this state budget concern. I was encouraged that about 700 people showed up in Boardman Monday to protest state budget cuts and policies that have left the cupboard bare for the approximately 95% of kids who still attend traditional public schools. It remains to be seen whether lawmakers will notice. When will they begin to care about the kids for whom they are responsible the way all my teachers cared about me?
Humans may never breathe in space, but if there's ever a human that will, you can bet it will be a teacher.
Thank you, Mom and Dad, Bill Appling, and every other teacher who made such a profound impact on me. Someday, you will have political leaders worthy of your work. So continue to teach your children well. You never know who they will become.
What struck me about these stories (as well as the other similar announcements in Cleveland and elsewhere) is how state lawmakers and officials are getting away with almost zero accountability in this whole trend. In the last budget, the state cut education funding (formula and non-formula) by nearly $3 billion in total, according to the Education Tax Policy Institute. Yet nowhere in the stories about Akron and Youngstown is this mentioned by officials in either location, except as a passing mention of generic budget cuts being part of the problem.
Remember, in HB 1 from 2009, Youngstown was set to receive an additional $33.8 million in state aid for the next 10 years, Akron $64.5 million. And that was a mere 3 years ago. What a difference a few years can make.
Just in formula money, Akron was cut $14.7 million last budget. Youngstown was cut $5.9 million. And that doesn't count non-formula cuts. Akron's budget deficit is $24 million. They will have to eliminate 139 teachers to save $13.6 million, according to the Akron Beacon Journal story. And those cuts will happen regardless of whether the people pass a levy in November. Those jobs in Akron are gone forever, barring a crisis of conscience from the state. They aren't even coming back if the district gets everything it wants at the bargaining table this year.
Is it a coincidence that the amount Akron's trying to save is just about the amount the state cut in the district's formula aid? How about Youngstown, which is eliminating more than 70 jobs, including teachers, to save $4.1 million? Again, the state could have even cut, just not as deep, and Youngstown could have avoided the need to eliminate these jobs.
And does anyone else find it ironic that these cuts were necessitated by a budget that was called "The Jobs Budget"? The very definition of misnomer.
Anyway, the jobs are just a part of what the fallout will be. Here's the non-job cuts from Akron:
The district will save another $4.6 million by canceling middle school sports and other services while spending less on supplies, textbooks, equipment, technology and software.Here's the non-job cuts from Youngstown:
As a proactive approach to maintaining a balanced budget, Beachum suggested investigating cost reductions in 13 areas: student/teacher ratio, central office / administrative staffing, health care, overtime, step increases, contract management services, building closures, high school transportation, on time supply, utilities, travel and extracurricular activities.I want someone to tell me how the elimination of these programs will benefit children and increase their achievement. Please tell me. Then show me the peer-reviewed evidence.
If one ever wanted to permanently eliminate public schools, I would think a great way to do that would be to base accountability on tests (which are closely aligned with demographics and cost money to de-couple the results from those demographics), cut funding, then raise standards higher and higher, forcing districts to breathe in space.
When you put together the state superintendent's recent statement that he wants to have kids tested more frequently, while the state cuts nearly $3 billion in cuts and the state develops new district report cards that knock 85% of school districts lower than they are rated today, one begins to wonder if that isn't the current goal.
I'm sure the districts will make do. If there's a group of professionals who have learned how to do more with less recently, it's teachers and schools. But at some point, there's no more blood to squeeze. As former Ohio Senate President Bill Harris put it: you can't cut too much before you cut the quick. Yet perhaps that's the point. Not only are revenues to districts being cut, but according to new data released from the Ohio Department of Education, the state, on average, sends out $7,100 per pupil to Charter Schools, which leaves districts with $3,390 per pupil with which to educate the same child.
So districts are being cut by the state on their top line number, AND their bottom line number.
Yet in both these stories, I was most concerned about the districts' comments. They are trying to simply make it work. No anger. No marches on Columbus. Where's the outrage?
Don't districts know there's about a $250 million budget surplus at the state? Or that there's enough potential revenue from Ohio fracking to produce a permanent school fund that could provide the equivalent of about the amount the lottery provides every year if the state simply adopted Texas' extraction fees? Are they even trying to have some of their funding restored so kids don't lose extracurriculars in the most important educational years? How about fighting so kids don't have class sizes in the 30s in the early grades when the evidence suggests that 13-17:1 class sizes in the early grades can double the likelihood of poor children graduating high school?
Instead, here's what Youngstown School Board President Lock Beachum told the Vindicator about that district's proposed cuts:
"I applaud Dr. Hathorn and his staff for the work they have done in fiscal management," said board Beachum. "It is never easy, but it is the right thing to do."When our public officials start believing that seriously figuring out how to slash jobs, increase class sizes, close buildings and eliminate extracurricular activities is "the right thing to do", what hope is there for our kids?
The hope lies with the teachers. That's the message I wanted to convey on Teacher Appreciation Week. My mom just taught her last class last week as a professor at Hiram College. She joins my dad in the ranks of the "retired" teachers. If there's a finer examination of what makes a great teacher than my father's love letter to my mother here, then I've got nothing for you.
Of course, the great ones never really retire, though. Anyone who knows a teacher knows that. And teachers will continue doing the best they can, even if it means spending more and more of their own money to provide what kids need. They will continue teaching, even if politicians try harder and harder to make that impossible. They will continue being the only adults in many children's lives who actually help them achieve their dreams, or even dream at all. They will continue to advocate and fight passionately for their kids' needs.
More folks are recognizing this state budget concern. I was encouraged that about 700 people showed up in Boardman Monday to protest state budget cuts and policies that have left the cupboard bare for the approximately 95% of kids who still attend traditional public schools. It remains to be seen whether lawmakers will notice. When will they begin to care about the kids for whom they are responsible the way all my teachers cared about me?
Humans may never breathe in space, but if there's ever a human that will, you can bet it will be a teacher.
Thank you, Mom and Dad, Bill Appling, and every other teacher who made such a profound impact on me. Someday, you will have political leaders worthy of your work. So continue to teach your children well. You never know who they will become.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Casino Money for Schools = Lottery Redux
A few days ago, some legislators suggested that Ohio's schools need not fret about the $1.8 billion that was eliminated from education with their votes in last year's budget bill. Casinos will come to the rescue!
Here's how freshman State Rep. Mike Duffey, R-Worthington, put it:
It is true that the Constitutional language that allowed Ohio's first casinos to open in Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo calls for the funds to not supplant money that would have already been spent.
Go ahead and try to prove that the education cuts next budget of $200 million, $180 million, $150 million, or whatever the amount, happened because there's $160 million in gambling money that's coming in (the estimated amount from the state's new casinos that would be earmarked for schools).
We'll be told the state cut money to schools because revenues are down, the economy's bad, we need another tax cut, or something else. The excuses are tried and true.
Unless the cut to education money is essentially the same amount as the gambling money, and other areas of the budget increase by about that same figure, it's going to be awfully difficult to prove the state is supplanting general revenue money with the gambling money.
And let's say it is provable. Is anyone confident that the Ohio Supreme Court would be excited about taking on the legislature again on a school funding issue and rule that the legislature violated the Constitution? DeRolph fatigue (Ohio's school funding case that found Ohio's system unconstitutional four times between 1997 and 2002) would certainly play a factor.
This is why astute South-Western Treasurer Hugh Garside told the Dispatch this:
The Dispatch story only looked at additional revenue for Franklin County districts, so let's examine them. Franklin County districts were cut about $83 million in the last budget. Casino revenue will generate $16.6 million for Franklin County, according to the Dispatch story. There remains a yawning gulf of $66.4 million. So property taxpayers still have to come up with about $65 more per $100,000 home to make up for the cut, and that doesn't include non-formulary cuts from the previous budget.
In South-Western schools, casino money would eventually generate $2 million a year, according to the Dispatch article. Sounds great, right? Sure, until you notice that the budget last year cut them over $10 million just in the formulaic distribution, which helps explain Treasurer Garside's reluctance to support the idea of a Casino rescue.
Oh, and one more thing: Last school year, the state's Charter Schools received $721 million in state money originally intended for school districts. Through the second April payment this school year, Charters are set to receive $771 million. If they continue to grow at that rate, it won't be long (3-4 years) before all the additional gambling money (as well as all the lottery money) is effectively eaten up by Charter School payments.
In addition, the districts that will benefit the least from the casino money are the ones that have historically been shortchanged by the state and were the subject of the DeRolph litigation -- rural Appalachian districts. They are also the most dependent on state money because they raise as little as $25,000 on a mill of property tax. However, they won't see much of the casino money because it is distributed proportionately to districts based on a county's school population. The money won't be distributed evenly among all Ohio's students, such as giving districts an extra $100 per pupil or something. From Section 15.06(B) of the Ohio Constitution:
So, once again, schools, parents and children are being sold a bill of goods that there's some pot of gold over the rainbow. Ohioans have caught this leprechaun before.
He was carrying Iron Pyrite.
Here's how freshman State Rep. Mike Duffey, R-Worthington, put it:
... Duffey said ... that districts should start conservatively counting casino money in their five-year forecasts.This is exactly what politicians told school districts about the state's lottery profits -- it would fix school funding. Instead, Columbus politicians took the lottery money and simply replaced General Revenue Funds with it. So no additional money went to schools; it just changed the makeup of the revenue source.
“I would certainly advise them to add it to what they’re getting right now,” he said. “I wouldn’t anticipate ... any reduction in state funding to offset what they’re going to get in casino money. It’s going to be supplemental, not just offset money.”
It is true that the Constitutional language that allowed Ohio's first casinos to open in Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo calls for the funds to not supplant money that would have already been spent.
Tax collection, and distributions to public school districts and local governments, under sections 6(C)(2) and (3), are intended to supplement, not supplant, any funding obligations of the state. Accordingly, all such distributions shall be disregarded for purposes of determining whether funding obligations imposed by other sections of this Constitution are met.
Go ahead and try to prove that the education cuts next budget of $200 million, $180 million, $150 million, or whatever the amount, happened because there's $160 million in gambling money that's coming in (the estimated amount from the state's new casinos that would be earmarked for schools).
We'll be told the state cut money to schools because revenues are down, the economy's bad, we need another tax cut, or something else. The excuses are tried and true.
Unless the cut to education money is essentially the same amount as the gambling money, and other areas of the budget increase by about that same figure, it's going to be awfully difficult to prove the state is supplanting general revenue money with the gambling money.
And let's say it is provable. Is anyone confident that the Ohio Supreme Court would be excited about taking on the legislature again on a school funding issue and rule that the legislature violated the Constitution? DeRolph fatigue (Ohio's school funding case that found Ohio's system unconstitutional four times between 1997 and 2002) would certainly play a factor.
This is why astute South-Western Treasurer Hugh Garside told the Dispatch this:
“It won’t be new money,” he said. “We would receive the same amount of money, but it would be funded from a different source.”And let's say by some chance it is not used to supplant general revenue. Is it really enough to make up for the crushing funding cuts from last budget? Absolutely not. By way of scale, the lottery produces about $660 million a year for education. The new Casino money is not even one-quarter of that and represents about 1% of all state, local and federal money spent on education in Ohio each year.
The Dispatch story only looked at additional revenue for Franklin County districts, so let's examine them. Franklin County districts were cut about $83 million in the last budget. Casino revenue will generate $16.6 million for Franklin County, according to the Dispatch story. There remains a yawning gulf of $66.4 million. So property taxpayers still have to come up with about $65 more per $100,000 home to make up for the cut, and that doesn't include non-formulary cuts from the previous budget.
In South-Western schools, casino money would eventually generate $2 million a year, according to the Dispatch article. Sounds great, right? Sure, until you notice that the budget last year cut them over $10 million just in the formulaic distribution, which helps explain Treasurer Garside's reluctance to support the idea of a Casino rescue.
Oh, and one more thing: Last school year, the state's Charter Schools received $721 million in state money originally intended for school districts. Through the second April payment this school year, Charters are set to receive $771 million. If they continue to grow at that rate, it won't be long (3-4 years) before all the additional gambling money (as well as all the lottery money) is effectively eaten up by Charter School payments.
In addition, the districts that will benefit the least from the casino money are the ones that have historically been shortchanged by the state and were the subject of the DeRolph litigation -- rural Appalachian districts. They are also the most dependent on state money because they raise as little as $25,000 on a mill of property tax. However, they won't see much of the casino money because it is distributed proportionately to districts based on a county's school population. The money won't be distributed evenly among all Ohio's students, such as giving districts an extra $100 per pupil or something. From Section 15.06(B) of the Ohio Constitution:
Thirty-four percent of the tax on gross casino revenue shall be distributed among all eighty-eight counties in proportion to such counties' respective public school district student populations at the time of such distribution. Each such distribution received by a county shall be distributed among all public school districts located (in whole or in part) within such county in proportion to each school district's respective student population who are residents of such county at the time of such distribution to the school districts.Therefore, counties with sparse student populations will receive proportionately lower shares of the gambling revenue. Franklin County, which is the county the Dispatch discussed, is the state's second largest county, but, depending on how you count student population, is the state's largest or second largest (according to the latest Cupp Report, on average daily membership it's second while it's first in enrollment) and will, therefore, receive the largest or second-largest share of gambling revenue (about 10-11%). Yet even in Franklin County, where the casino money will have just about the greatest impact of any of the state's 88 counties, the amount casinos will contribute to schools is relatively minor, especially compared with the massive cuts Duffey and others thrust upon districts in the last budget.
So, once again, schools, parents and children are being sold a bill of goods that there's some pot of gold over the rainbow. Ohioans have caught this leprechaun before.
He was carrying Iron Pyrite.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Cleveland Transformation Alliance and E-Schools
In all this talk over the Cleveland Transformation Alliance overseeing future Charter School development within the footprint of the Cleveland Muncipal School District (CMSD), one obvious question is: What about electronic schools?
Note: For a background on Ohio's eSchool experience, please look at the Innovation Ohio report here.
After all, in Cleveland, the top two Charter Schools in terms of enrollment from Cleveland are the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) and Ohio Virtual Academy (the K-12, Inc. operation with the infamous 51:1 student-teacher ratio), both of which have graduation rates (40.7% and 58.8%) that make Cleveland's 62.8% rate look downright fantastic. Yet the Alliance wouldn't have a say over them because they're not located in the CMSD footprint.
Again, almost 1,500 children (about 3% of Cleveland's public-charter student population) attend these two eSchools. More Cleveland kids go to ECOT than attend Citizens Academy, Intergenerational School and Entrepreneurial Prep -- the original three, high-performing Breakthrough Schools -- combined. In fact, 17% more Cleveland students attend ECOT with its 40.7 graduation rate (on-time graduation rate of 29.6%) than they do those three top-tier schools.
Yet the Alliance won't touch them.
Perhaps they should.
Note: For a background on Ohio's eSchool experience, please look at the Innovation Ohio report here.
After all, in Cleveland, the top two Charter Schools in terms of enrollment from Cleveland are the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) and Ohio Virtual Academy (the K-12, Inc. operation with the infamous 51:1 student-teacher ratio), both of which have graduation rates (40.7% and 58.8%) that make Cleveland's 62.8% rate look downright fantastic. Yet the Alliance wouldn't have a say over them because they're not located in the CMSD footprint.
Again, almost 1,500 children (about 3% of Cleveland's public-charter student population) attend these two eSchools. More Cleveland kids go to ECOT than attend Citizens Academy, Intergenerational School and Entrepreneurial Prep -- the original three, high-performing Breakthrough Schools -- combined. In fact, 17% more Cleveland students attend ECOT with its 40.7 graduation rate (on-time graduation rate of 29.6%) than they do those three top-tier schools.
Yet the Alliance won't touch them.
Perhaps they should.
Mr. Jackson Goes to Columbus
I attended the initial House hearing on the so-called Cleveland Plan for education yesterday. And while I couldn't stay for the whole thing, it was pretty clear to me that this plan is being fast tracked. Few specific concerns were expressed over the Plan. Democrats' concerns were more procedural (how this came about, why is it necessary) and futuristic (won't this impact future reforms, given Gov. John Kasich's statements that Cleveland will serve as a model).
Republicans' questions (I left part way through the first round of Republican questions) focused on teacher evaluation.
However, it was also clear that two concerns remain with the plan:
1) The Transformation Alliance
This is a separate non-profit panel that will pass judgment on the plan's implementation and also green-light future Charter School proposals in Cleveland. The concern is being most strenuously expressed by pro-Charter forces, who don't like the idea of additional oversight of their success and failure. Longtime Charter Advocate and oversight opponent Ron Adler going so far as to say in the Dispatch story about the Senate hearing,
To Jackson's credit, after Innovation Ohio and others expressed concerns about the Alliance's transparency, he has greatly improved that aspect of the Alliance.
2) Charter Schools receiving local revenue
This is coming from Democrats and even the Cleveland Teachers Union, which has agreed to support the plan, save this provision. Again, Charters receive about double the per pupil state money that local districts do. They receive significantly more per pupil revenue from the state than even Cleveland does. This is ostensibly because they do not receive local revenue. However, the Cleveland plan would allow them to continue collecting the larger state amounts PLUS local revenue.
This is a dangerous precedent for Ohio. It could open up the $8.5 billion raised on local property taxes for schools (compared with about $6 billion the state kicks in, including Charter and Voucher money, $5 billion of which ends up going to school districts) to go to Charters, or to be bundled together with state revenues in a new funding formula to transfer money raised for schools in Cleveland to go to schools outside Cleveland and elsewhere.
As I've said before, my greatest disappointment is the Cleveland advocates' absolute refusal to ask the state for any financial investment in the plan, especially since the Ohio Constitution and Supreme Court dictate that education funding is a state, not local responsibility. It is impossible for me to imagine how the Plan's greatest strength -- its commitment to ensure universal pre-school for all 3 and 4 year olds -- will happen if the state contributes nothing. Especially when the district's budget deficit is $65 million and state budget cuts in the last budget equalled about $60 million. The state created nearly all the financial mess in Cleveland, but it's up to folks making $22,000 a year to make up for those losses by voting to increase their taxes by $300-$400 per year, depending on their home value?
During the hearing yesterday, the Cleveland advocates also displayed a remarkable degree of naivete about the overall impact this plan will have throughout this state. Gov. Kasich has called this a potential model for urban education throughout the state at least. That made Cincinnati-area legislators cringe, for that district is the only district rated a B or higher on the state report card.
But both Jackson and Cleveland CEO Eric Gordon refused to address that. Instead, they said the idea is to make this plan work for Cleveland, its potentially great statewide impact didn't matter.
This brings me to my larger point: If local districts are left to fend for themselves, developing reform plans all on their own based on higher and higher property taxes, what exactly is the role of the state?
Perhaps that is the point, at least for this current state leadership team.
Republicans' questions (I left part way through the first round of Republican questions) focused on teacher evaluation.
However, it was also clear that two concerns remain with the plan:
1) The Transformation Alliance
This is a separate non-profit panel that will pass judgment on the plan's implementation and also green-light future Charter School proposals in Cleveland. The concern is being most strenuously expressed by pro-Charter forces, who don't like the idea of additional oversight of their success and failure. Longtime Charter Advocate and oversight opponent Ron Adler going so far as to say in the Dispatch story about the Senate hearing,
“You don’t want to have collaboration with a gun at your back,” said Ron Adler, president of the Ohio Coalition for Quality Education. “The mayor needs to prove himself with his own schools before he takes on anything else.”Adler apparently feels no obligation to prove Charters' worth, even though less than two dozen would rate in the top half of school districts on the Performance Index score. Again, only 5 districts in the entire state did not lose money to charters last year.
To Jackson's credit, after Innovation Ohio and others expressed concerns about the Alliance's transparency, he has greatly improved that aspect of the Alliance.
2) Charter Schools receiving local revenue
This is coming from Democrats and even the Cleveland Teachers Union, which has agreed to support the plan, save this provision. Again, Charters receive about double the per pupil state money that local districts do. They receive significantly more per pupil revenue from the state than even Cleveland does. This is ostensibly because they do not receive local revenue. However, the Cleveland plan would allow them to continue collecting the larger state amounts PLUS local revenue.
This is a dangerous precedent for Ohio. It could open up the $8.5 billion raised on local property taxes for schools (compared with about $6 billion the state kicks in, including Charter and Voucher money, $5 billion of which ends up going to school districts) to go to Charters, or to be bundled together with state revenues in a new funding formula to transfer money raised for schools in Cleveland to go to schools outside Cleveland and elsewhere.
As I've said before, my greatest disappointment is the Cleveland advocates' absolute refusal to ask the state for any financial investment in the plan, especially since the Ohio Constitution and Supreme Court dictate that education funding is a state, not local responsibility. It is impossible for me to imagine how the Plan's greatest strength -- its commitment to ensure universal pre-school for all 3 and 4 year olds -- will happen if the state contributes nothing. Especially when the district's budget deficit is $65 million and state budget cuts in the last budget equalled about $60 million. The state created nearly all the financial mess in Cleveland, but it's up to folks making $22,000 a year to make up for those losses by voting to increase their taxes by $300-$400 per year, depending on their home value?
During the hearing yesterday, the Cleveland advocates also displayed a remarkable degree of naivete about the overall impact this plan will have throughout this state. Gov. Kasich has called this a potential model for urban education throughout the state at least. That made Cincinnati-area legislators cringe, for that district is the only district rated a B or higher on the state report card.
But both Jackson and Cleveland CEO Eric Gordon refused to address that. Instead, they said the idea is to make this plan work for Cleveland, its potentially great statewide impact didn't matter.
This brings me to my larger point: If local districts are left to fend for themselves, developing reform plans all on their own based on higher and higher property taxes, what exactly is the role of the state?
Perhaps that is the point, at least for this current state leadership team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)