BREAKING: Ohio Schools Aren't Cheating

File this in the "I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you" category. From today's Hannah Report:

"In his second audit of school attendance figures, Auditor Dave Yost announced Tuesday that of the 47 school districts and 81 schools he examined in the final days before the General Election, none had revealed evidence of data “scrubbing” for the apparent purpose of inflated state report card rankings."

Wow. So, you mean all that talk about how much School Districts were cheating to get good Report Card scores, or how "suspicious" attendance records were, was for naught? I'm stunned.

So the state spent $450,000 (at least) on a witch hunt to catch schools doing something wrong because ideologues couldn't believe they were doing well on Report Card ratings? Yup. Looks like it.

Whereas my being stunned is sarcastic, Mr. Yost expressed a similar level of surprise. Only he was serious.

“I’m surprised and pleased,” Yost said. “To have zero incidents of ‘scrubbing’ is encouraging news.”

This tells me that Yost went into this thing assuming districts were scrubbing data to make themselves look better. To his credit, he followed the facts and reached a conclusion that was different from his bias. However, I think his assumption is telling.

For so long, conservatives and free market reformers have been banging the "public education sucks" drum that when news comes out that 2/3 of Ohio School Districts rate A or A+ on the report card, as it did last week, the reaction is one of two: the tests are too easy, or the districts are cheating.

Why don't folks in the media or in the public eye instead give the simpler, more elegant answer: Schools are doing a fine job, on the whole, of preparing their kids for the tests. We can talk about whether test scores equates with excellent education, but the state has created a test-taking regime that the districts are Ace-ing. No doubt about it.

And it drives the free market reformers nuts. Because it doesn't fit their narrative. They've even got the Akron Beacon Journal's editorial board buying into the "something's fishy with the report card" stuff.

If the tests are so easy, why are only 10% of Charters rated A or A+? Why are 40% D or F? If it's so easy for school districts to excel at the tests, why, then, is it so blooming hard for Charters to do the same?

And before Charters say, "we have harder kids to educate," remember that was the exact reason urban districts gave for their poorer test results when Charter Schools started in 1998. Charter School proponents called those "excuses". Perhaps Charters have another excuse handy this time?

I mean, it's only been 15 years and $6 billion spent on schools that have "improved" so much that a paltry10% are excellent. Meanwhile, every Ohio child not in a Charter receives 6.5% less state revenue because of how much extra the state pays for Charter Schools.

Perhaps Charters should try some "scrubbing". Because it appears that, right now, the only way they can measure up to traditional public schools is if they cheat. On tests that are allegedly "too easy."

How sad is that?

Beacon Journal Makes and Misses Point

In today's Beacon Journal, the editorial board made a decent point: Can it be that two-thirds of Ohio's districts are excellent or better?

However, they really missed a greater point because they never make a real attempt at explaining why it may be. Perhaps districts are really good at test prep versus 10 years ago, or have adjusted to the new scheme to ensure their kids test well. If the Beacon did make that point, then they could question whether test prep is education (a legitimate policy debate).

However, here's the major point they missed -- by questioning whether 2/3 of schools are excellent based on tests, aren't they really questioning the validity of judging educational excellence by tests? They suggest instead that the tests are too easy (wonder how they'd do on them, by the way).  

Anyone with kids in school knows that tests dominate their lives. My second-grader has already taken more tests in his first two months of school than I took in my entire elementary school life in Hudson and Aurora -- two really good districts. He's learning Algebra concepts already. He's expected to learn multiplication tables, which I didn't learn until third or fourth grade. He's expected to read on his own, take reading comprehension tests, all while demonstrating a level of self-control in class that I still haven't mastered. And he takes tests at least two to three times a week. He has test anxiety already, for crying out loud.

Now, you can argue whether that will lead to a more successful life -- the ability to take tests. What you cannot do is disagree with the fact that he is already, in second grade, receiving test preparation. He will do well on tests because he will be well-practiced at them. A valuable skill, no doubt. But is it education? Now that's a debate we should be having, especially given how closely related to income test scores have always been.

The Beacon's knee jerk reaction to an incredible complex phenomenon is kind of disappointing. Especially when it is coming from a newspaper whose reputation as a public education salwart has been earned in the sweat of its dogged reporters and editors.

Oh, and one more thing: If the tests are so easy, why in God's name are 40% of Charters rated D or F on the report card? Or only 10% excellent or better (which is far better than they have historically)? Isn't that a horrible record, given how "easy" proficiency tests are?

Will anyone, please, ask that question? Better yet, will somebody answer it for me? I mean, my second grader loses about 3% of his state money because of these things. I'd like to know what they're doing to earn the right to take that much educational opportunity away from my son, as well as the 1.7 million kids in this state who lose, on average, about 6.5% of their state revenue to Charters.

UPDATED: Ohio Wants to Re-test 8,600 Teachers. Really?

In last year's budget bill, a provision was inserted that required core subject teachers in buildings that scored in the bottom 10% on the Performance Index to be re-tested. And schools can use these re-tests in personnel decisions.

UPDATE: I made a mistake by not including in this post the changes that were made in SB 136 this spring, which now only applies this re-test requirement to "teachers (who) have been rated 'ineffective' on evaluations for two of the three most recent years." However, legislators and the governor actually approved the language of the budget bill. So I will keep the post, putting it forward as an examination of what lawmakers in this state actually voted to do and the consequence that action would have. For there is no guarantee they won't do this again.

Looking at the new Report Card data from this week, a total of up to 8,600 teachers would need to be re-tested in 35 districts under the budget language. It is difficult to know how many exactly would have been re-tested because the Cupp Report, which lists the number of full-time teachers, does not break them out by core and non-core subject teachers. The teachers listed there are the teachers who conduct "instructional service delivery of regular education to non-special and non-career tech education students." If all the teachers listed in the Cupp Report had to be re-tested, it would be 8,617.

Some districts could have had more than 3 out of 4 teachers subject to testing, according to the data.

Is it really possible that all those teachers are to blame for low test scores, or even the fewer that will be tested post-SB 316? How about the fact that the average poverty rate in those 35 districts is about double that of the average Ohio district? The data and research indicate it is, in fact, poverty that drives test scores.

Take Warrensville Heights. More than 77% of that district's teachers could need to be re-tested. In Cleveland, 69.4% could need re-testing. In Akron, 40%, and in Richmond Heights, 51%.

I include the list of districts, with the numbers of teachers in each eligible building, as a list at the bottom of this post. The number required to take the test would have likely been less, but most teachers listed in the Cupp Report are, in fact, core teachers -- especially in early grades. So it won't be a huge difference.

The bottom line is this: Public school teachers get hammered for producing Performance Index Scores that are in line with what one would expect, given the demographics of the district. This "Blame the Teacher" movement is truly poisonous. Think about it. We expect teachers during the course of the day to serve as teachers, therapists, police officers and parents. And if the children don't score well on a test whose outcome is all but assured given the district's demographic makeup, then it's the teachers' fault. Or it's the union's fault.

Really?

So whose fault are the pitifully low scores of the non-union Charter Schools? Their average Performance Index score is worse than all but 5, or 0.8% of school districts.

Since there's no similar outcry from the state's leadership about Charter School teachers, I'm thinking that this isn't really a teacher thing.

It's a union thing.

District	Number of Teachers Potentially Re-tested	Total Number of District Teachers	% of Districts Teachers Potentially Re-Tested	% of Children in Poverty
Warrensville Heights City	101	131	77.1%	60.17%
Cleveland Municipal	2155	3107	69.4%	100.00%
Lima City	198	298	66.4%	80.83%
Dayton City	653	986	66.2%	92.51%
Columbus City School District	1785	2939	60.7%	81.86%
East Cleveland City School District	138	231	59.7%	88.47%
Youngstown City Schools	264	464	56.9%	91.87%
Lockland Local	27	50	54.0%	62.92%
Lorain City	275	514	53.5%	84.51%
Western Local	24	45	53.3%	81.57%
Jefferson Township Local	19	36	52.8%	5.26%
Warren City	190	368	51.6%	75.19%
Richmond Heights Local	24	47	51.1%	52.98%
Euclid City	154	375	41.1%	66.03%
Springfield City	174	441	39.5%	76.27%
Akron City	669	1704	39.3%	84.70%
Garfield Heights City Schools	78	205	38.0%	64.74%
Maple Heights City	79	233	33.9%	70.79%
Toledo City	518	1560	33.2%	76.65%
Cincinnati City	643	1970	32.6%	69.70%
Bettsville Local	4	15	26.7%	56.57%
New Lexington City	29	114	25.4%	58.23%
Canton City	154	645	23.9%	80.61%
Mansfield City	44	280	15.7%	84.05%
Winton Woods City	35	230	15.2%	57.70%
Painesville City Local	27	183	14.8%	75.94%
Cleveland Heights-University Heights City	64	466	13.7%	61.25%
Trotwood-Madison City	21	158	13.3%	81.93%
Whitehall City	23	175	13.1%	75.69%
Coshocton City	14	121	11.6%	59.70%
Athens City	20	215	9.3%	34.06%
Barberton City	24	259	9.3%	70.65%
Groveport Madison Local	22	318	6.9%	57.98%
Middletown City	27	427	6.3%	71.53%
Princeton City	20	377	5.3%	58.61%
Grand Total	8617	19687	43.8%	70.04%

PA Republicans Reject Ohio's Charter School Law

Interesting story here about how Pennsylvania Republicans rejected a plan to allow the state Department of Education to override a local school board's rejection of Charter Schools in their districts.

What's amazing is that in Ohio, school boards have never had a say in the proliferation of Charter Schools in their districts. They are a state animal. The state takes district money and gives it to Charters over whom the districts has zero authority.

It is fair to say, then, that Pennsylvania's Republicans rejected Ohio's Charter School law, at least on this provision.

Is it any wonder, by the way, that the Charter-Public relationship is so bitter and cooperation between the two is almost non-existent? If the local district loses money to Charters, its kids lose 6.5% of their state revenue because of the system, and the district has no say over their proliferation, can you really blame them?

This is a function, again, of Ohio's Charter School movement being a political, rather than reform, movement. When will Ohio's leaders recognize that Charters and Publics should be working together, not against each other, to provide a better, more cooperative and collaborative system?

The children of Ohio have been waiting for 15 years.

New Charter Districts Do Better than Charters

A provision in last year's budget bill said that if you are a district that scored in the bottom 5% of school districts on the Performance Index Score (a calculation dealing with proficiency test results), then Charter Schools could open in your district. Prior to this, they were restricted to the Big 8 Urban Districts (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown) and districts in Academic Emergency, which tended to also be the Big 8. In other words, not many districts.

Matt DiCarlo at the Shanker Blog pretty well demonstrated that this policy change to put Charters in the same districts plus the bottom 5% on Performance Index would be based not on school performance, but on poverty because proficiency tests (which is what the Performance Index is measuring) is so irrevocably tied to income.

So when one looks at the most recent Ohio Report Card data and sees that only about 1 out of 4 Charter Schools would rate better than the bottom 5% of School Districts on the Performance Index score, is opening more Charter Schools in these districts really a solution?

Especially when these schools, on average, outperform Charter Schools on 2 out of every 3 proficiency test subjects. Or graduate kids at more than twice the rate of Charter Schools, on average. Or have higher attendance rates. Or score higher on the Performance Index Score. And they do it with just about the same percentage of kids who are economically disadvantaged (79.1% for Charters, 78.7% for publics).

Opening up 5% of the state's schools to Charters would be an incredible opportunity for Charter Schools to expand even faster than they have already, growing from a $50 million a year program in 2000 to the $771 million program it was last school year.

Note: While there are 613 school districts in Ohio, only 610 were released in yesterday's report card data dump. So I assume the bottom 30 of the 610 will be included. However, it could include a couple more districts if the state includes the other three that weren't included in yesterday's data release. I wanted to be as conservative as possible with the calculation and include districts certain to be facing this policy change, which is why I went with the bottom 30 rather than the bottom 31 or 32.

So while there are barely 25% of Charter Schools that would rate higher than the bottom 5% of public schools on the Performance Index Score, those public schools will now lose kids and precious dollars to schools that actually score worse than they do.

Kids in the Big 8 lose about 12% of their state revenue to the Charter School funding system in this state. So it's logical to think a similar average loss would be hitting the new areas Charters are now allowed to occupy.

Here is the list of districts, according to the state's new report card data.

Warrensville Heights City

Cleveland Municipal

Dayton City

East Cleveland City School District

Youngstown City Schools

Lorain City

Jefferson Township Local

Columbus City School District

Lima City

Trotwood-Madison City

Euclid City

Maple Heights City

Warren City

Springfield City

Toledo City

Garfield Heights City Schools

Mansfield City

Painesville City Local

Richmond Heights Local

Canton City

Upper Scioto Valley Local

Akron City

Mt Healthy City

Marion City

Sandusky City

Western Local

Lockland Local

Middletown City

Fostoria City

Cleveland Heights-University Heights City

What do all these districts have in common?

They occupy the 10 highest poverty rates in the state, 15 of the top 20 and more than half of the top 40. In other words, DiCarlo was right: This new state policy on Charter School locations is directed primarily at the state's poorest districts.

So rather than pay for universal pre-school, smaller classes or beefed up tutoring -- things we know work, the state decides instead to allow schools to open, only one in four of which would rate above the lowest 5% of the state's public schools.

Here's a question: Why would the state do something that doesn't work when they have the money (about $500 million) to do something that does?

Ohio Report Card: Publics Better than Charters (again)

The Ohio Department of Education put out their full report card data today, without the bells and whistles, pending an ongoing, and increasingly suspect, investigation of data manipulation being done by the Ohio Auditor.

While I will delve into these numbers in more detail in coming posts, I thought it would be helpful to explain just how well Ohio's traditional school districts are doing relative to their Charter School counterparts.

-- The average Charter School meets a little more than 30% of the state's indicators. The average traditional public school meets 78% of the state's indicators.

-- On the state's performance index score, Charter Schools score an average of 78. That is a lower score than 92% of Ohio's 3,070 traditional public school buildings that receive a performance index score. So the average Charter School would rate in the bottom 8% of traditional schools.

-- Ohio's traditional public schools graduate nearly 90% of their students, on average. Charter Schools graduate barely 30% on average.

-- On proficiencies, only on 5th Grade Math and 8th Grade Science do the state's 3,223 traditional public schools, on average, score below a 70% proficient level. The average proficiency on all 24 tests for them is 81% proficient. Charter Schools score above 70% proficient in exactly 2 of the 24 tested subjects (they score exactly 70% on one).The average proficiency rate in a Charter School is 60.9%. If one looks at school districts, it's even worse for Charters. The average proficiency rate in an Ohio school district is 85% while only in 4 of the 24 subjects does the average School District have a proficiency rate below 80%.

-- Even the much-maligned Big 8 Urban districts (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown) more than hold their own with Charter Schools, and in many ways outperform their counterparts. The average Big 8 building has 88% of its kids economically disadvantaged, while 79% of Charter Schools do. Yet the Big 8 buildings' average proficiency rate is 61.6% compared with the 60.7% Charter School average. In addition, on the performance index score, the average Big 8 building has a higher performance index score than the average Charter. Again, proficiencies are linked almost perfectly with poverty, as demonstrated here and here. So if the Big 8 is able to outperform Charters, even though the Big 8 has significantly higher poverty rates, what does that tell you?

-- Charters generally outperform Big 8 buildings in Grade 3-8, though only by an average disparity of 3.8%. In High School, the Big 8 blows Charters away by nearly double that at 6.4%. And graduation rates? Again, not close. Big 8 buildings graduate kids at an average rate of 69% over 5-years (not great either, by the way). Charters, again, are about 33%.

Brick and mortar Charters were allowed to open in more than the traditional Big 8 Urban districts in the last budget bill, so these numbers will get even worse for Charter Schools, I would imagine, though I have to more closely examine that.

Once again, kids in the Big 8 school districts lose nearly 12% of their state revenue thanks to the way Charter Schools are funded in this state. Yet despite that, and their greater economically disadvantaged population, the Big 8 are able to mostly outperform Charters.

Charters did do better on the overall, grade-like rating than they have in the past. Only 40% rated D or F on the report card, compared with nearly 50% a few years ago, thanks in no small measure to tighter closure standards instituted in House Bill 1. In addition, 10% of Charters rated A or A+, which is much higher than previous years. For the first time, the largest report card rating (or mode) for Charters was not an F or D; it was a C. Still not great, but better.

Oh, until you look at traditional schools. Only 8.4% of traditional school buildings rate D or F on the report card, while 58% rate A or A+. Nearly 44% of traditional schools rate an A -- the largest category (or mode) for traditional schools.

As for the Big 8, Charters do better than the Big 8 on the A-F scale; however, all school districts lose kids and revenue to Charter Schools. So is it fair to compare the two's performance anymore? Especially given that schools like Boardman -- an excellent rated district -- loses about $1.5 million a year to Charters?

Again, Charters cannot take kids and money from all districts, then demand their overall performance be compared with the traditional districts whose test scores are traditionally lowest.

Only 2.3% of school districts rate D or F on the report card, while 63% rate A or A+. Perhaps that more than anything explains why Charters want to get kids and money from every district, but not be compared with them.

The bottom line is this: after 15 years and nearly $6 billion spent on Charter Schools, is this really the best we can do? Doing utterly worse than the average pubic school while failing to outperform urban districts despite the urban districts having more economically disadvantaged kids and on average, 12% less state revenue per pupil because of the Charter School funding system?

Would that $6 billion have been better spent reducing the need for property taxes? Smaller classes? Tutors? Health care for kids? Richer curriculum?

I think after 15 years, Charter Schools get to stop being called an experiment and get to be called the status quo. And what these data show is that (outside of a few noteworthy exceptions) the status quo ain't working. Especially to the tune of $771 million, which was their cost last school year.

And especially when the funding system leaves every kid in Ohio that isn't in a Charter School with an average of 6.5% less state revenue than they otherwise should have.

The Movement Gains Steam

I just spent the day in Columbus meeting with about 400 educators, administrators, elected officials, school board members and parents to talk about how to fight for our public education system. The keynote speaker was Dr. Diane Ravitch -- an education policy expert of great renown.

She was once again very compelling when it came to extolling the virtues of the American Public Education System.

Why don't our kids score well on international tests? Our kids have never scored well on international tests.

The perception that the nation's schools are failing? Why then are NAEP scores the highest they've ever been?

The free market has all the answers? Why then have we used the free market answers for more than 20 years with no marked improvement from those free market solutions?

Her best point, I thought, was quite simple: what kind of school would you want your kids to attend? One that tests and tests and tests? Or one that has small classes, meaningful additional services and rich curriculum? Well, poor districts look like the former and wealthy districts the latter.

After Dr. Ravitch's great talk, we met in four different breakout sessions to discuss how we move forward. After lunch, we wrapped up with a talk about how Milwaukee's community rose up against mayoral control of schools and won, as well as further historical insight from Dr. Kern Alexander.

Finally, Dennis Willard (a former colleague of mine at the Akron Beacon Journal) announced that he is organizing a new group that will fight for the saving of Ohio's public education system, focusing on how they are the true community schools in this state. The Land Ordinance of 1785 put "public education" at the heart of every Ohio community. It is time to return to those Jeffersonian roots, which form the very roots of American Democracy -- the idea that everyone, everywhere should be educated.

I am thrilled that the energy around this issue is developing and building. I can't wait to see how quickly these events build. I can't wait to see what happens next year when legislators see just how massive a sleeping giant they have awakened.

Ohio's Governor infamously told people last year that they should get on the bus or get run over by it. That bus will be no match for the oncoming locomotive.

Clayton Luckie

It is with a heavy heart that I comment about my former colleague and friend Clayton Luckie. Clayton and I worked together on education issues all during my time in the legislature. Clayton is passionate about public education. And he hates (I mean hates) Charter Schools, owing to his decade of service on the Dayton School Board.

I can't tell you how many times I had to literally talk him off the ledge about Charter Schools. Thinking about them would get him so worked up sometimes he couldn't talk. But I always knew he wanted to do what was best for kids.

Which is why I am so sad to hear that today he has been arrested indicted for using his campaign funds as a personal checking account, including during the time I served with him. And while many Charter School advocates are cheering today, his misdeeds do not make him wrong about Charter Schools taking far too many state resources from traditional schools. What it does make him wrong about is how to treat campaign money. Here are some examples of Clayton's alleged malfeasance:

In an investigation that began 18 months ago, the FBI found that between 2006 and this year, Luckie made nearly 170 ATM withdrawals amounting to $19,000 and made more than 800 debit card transactions totaling about $40,000.

The ATM withdrawals included $1,700 at casinos in Indiana, Florida and West Virginia, and debit transactions of $100 to $1,300 at businesses including Nordstrom, Best Buy, a jewelry store and a home furnishings store, according to the indictment.

Twelve of the transactions were identified as money laundering in which the transfers were "designed to hide the source of the funds in an apparent legal financial transaction or to further corrupt activity," according to a news release announcing the charges.

One theft count stems from a $625 check made out to the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus that authorities say Luckie deposited in his personal bank account, rather than turning it over to the group.
 

Whenever these kinds of things happen, I have a saying I used to ask while I was a reporter: "At what point did you think this was OK?"

If this is true, as a former legislator, I am simply appalled at Clayton's total lack of regard for the law here. My wife and I were paranoid about every single transaction we conducted during our campaigns. And the one thing we made sure we did above all was make sure the money went to campaign expenses. If I did anything even close to what Clayton's accused of doing, I can tell you Melissa would have made me pay more than any fine was worth.

I pray that Clayton finds redemption somewhere here for his family's sake. But I can say this as a former colleague. Clayton, you screwed up.

And part of me wonders if I had been a better friend to Clayton during my time in the House, would he have told me about some of this and I could have helped him avoid it? Of course, that would have required Clayton to have recognized he was doing something wrong. And apparently, very early on, he told himself what he was doing was OK.

And that is all you really need to know.

Important IO Project

We at Innovation Ohio have been saying for a couple years now that state cuts will force local agencies to go to the ballot more often and for larger property tax levy amounts. And now, we're proving it. For the next 20 days we will be profiling one school district a day (out of the nearly 200 that have levies or bond issues on the ballot) until the Nov. 6 election.

At the IO school levy website, you can follow along with the daily levy watch, as well as look at the data demonstrating just how harmful state cuts are to kids and schools. I hope people pay attention to this effort and sound the alarm. Because if we don't, guess what will happen next year? More levies, higher property taxes and an ever increasing gulf between the state's constitutional responsibilities to Ohio's children and the state's lack of commitment to it.

It's up to us to keep that from happening.

Belated Westerville UPDATE

File this in the "I can't believe I missed this" category, but the Ohio Supreme Court ruled last month 7-0 that the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law couldn't overturn the vote of the people of Westerville.

This is a great relief for those who support public education. If the Center had been able to have the 2009 Westerville levy essentially undone, it could have had huge repercussions for school districts across the state. Districts get $8.5 billion from local property taxes, according to the State Department of Taxation. They get about $6 billion (after charters and others get their cut) from the state.

Any erosion of the schools' largest source of revenue would have devastating consequences.

However, look out for next year. The reason the Court ruled against 1851 was because the levy they wanted to undo was a replacement levy, which simply restored the voted-on rate from the 1970s to collect that amount again. The law only applies to levy increases.

Long story, but as property values go up in Ohio, millage rates drop, thanks to the Ohio Constitution. So in Westerville's case, their 11.4 mills they passed in the 1970s was now only collecting 3.43 mills. The replacement levy restored the effective rate to 11.4 mills, which results in higher taxes for the same voted rate. Confusing, I know. Welcome to Ohio Education Funding.

Will the Ohio General Assembly adjust the language in the provision of the code the 1851 Center sought to utilize here so that any levy is fair game, whether it increases millage or collections, all while cutting funding and increasing mandates? Or will they take the responsible tact and simply do away with this dangerous law all together?

Given this legislature's history, what do you think the GA will choose to do?

Homeschooler State Board Candidate Tries to Hide Homeschooling

Late last week, I wrote a post about an interesting case of a homeschooling parent, Philip Gerth, who is running for state school board in Southeast Ohio. I surmised he homeschooled his children based on a website his family set up talking about how great homeschooling was.

I received a large amount of traffic on the posting. And, lo and behold, this morning, the site I referred to no longer works. However, thanks to the Wayback Machine Internet Archive, it is still available here.

Now I'm really curious why a man who has spent his professional career as a lawyer defending the rights of homeschoolers to be left alone by regulation, even it means that children can be horrifically abused as a result of that lax oversight, would apparently try to hide his homeschooling.

I'm very suspicious that this is yet another case of a politician trying to hide something from the voters. In this case, why doesn't Mr. Gerth want the voters to know he homeschools his children? Could it be because he is seeking to join the State Board of Education, which oversees Ohio's schools (even though he doesn't apparently have kids in Ohio schools), at a time when the Board will be considering Homeschool regulations next year?

Just asking.

What do you think?

EdWeek Column Re-Print, Expanded Version

Last week, a column of mine ran with three other education policy experts in EdWeek. However, while the EdWeek editors did a fine job boiling down my column (and my colleagues'), I wanted to provide you the expanded version, which did not appear in EdWeek. But it will appear here. You should also remember that I wrote this prior to the Chicago strike being settled, in case the timeline in it confuses you. For those who are interested, I have also linked to my fellow authors' expanded versions on their websites at the bottom of the column.

The Fast and the Furious

By: Stephen Dyer

"I look at the Chicago Teachers Strike and really feel bad for Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, Chicago’s teachers and especially the kids of that great, proud city. I only lived in Chicago for a year, but it was the first place I ever fell in love with.

While the strike is a terrible thing for everyone involved, I think if folks in Chicago had taken a lesson from our experience in Ohio, especially on teacher compensation, it could have been avoided.

In 2009, I was the lead legislator on a comprehensive, statewide education reform plan that dealt with teacher compensation, accountability and a brand-new school funding system. It earned the 2010 Frank Newman award from the Education Commission of the States for being the country’s most bold, innovative and non-partisan education reform of 2009.

I learned much during the development of that plan. But most importantly, I learned that many well-meaning education reformers make three basic mistakes that lead to all kinds of headaches when trying to implement the reform.

Many reformers move too fast, too unilaterally and too confidently. As a result, they alienate people who could be their greatest allies: Teachers.

If teachers buy in to what you are doing as a reformer, it enhances the reform rather than weakens it – a claim many reformers have made to me over the years. Cleveland reformers didn’t even engage its teachers on that city’s recent reform plan until after they introduced it to the non-profit and business communities. Somehow, teachers unions are seen as the roadblock to reform, despite the fact that the centerpiece of most reformers’ efforts – Charter Schools – came from a teachers union.

In 2009, Ohio took a different approach. We gave teachers a broad framework in which to develop a new evaluation system, but it was they who developed the details. The plan they developed even had test scores count up to 50% of a teacher’s evaluation.

By the way, I’m still not sold on using tests that were designed to measure the level of student knowledge to also measure teacher excellence.  There are evaluation tools that do this, like observation and peer-review, but a student test is not one of them. Yet.

While certainly some of a child’s test success can be attributed to teaching, much can also be attributed to demographics. I analyzed Ohio test data and found that I could predict test scores in nearly 3 out of 4 school districts based on a few demographic measures like poverty and education attainment levels of parents. Others also have demonstrated that demographics or any one of a host of other issues other than teaching impact these scores.

Does this mean that the test scores of their students should not be considered in the evaluation? No. Does it mean we maybe should use sophisticated statistical analysis to try to control for demographics when calculating test scores so we find the true value of those results? Yes. We’ll find examples (as I did in Ohio) of children doing less well than their demographics indicate they should be doing, and we’ll find examples of students soaring in some of the most traditionally ridiculed districts.

Many teachers, and even their unions, have bought into the idea that test scores should count for something, just not everything. And this brings me back to the mistakes many well-meaning reformers make: moving too fast, too unilaterally and to confidently.

If reformers listen to teachers and seriously include them in the discussion over the change in their profession, they can become the reformers’ greatest allies – look at Denver’s experience. In Ohio, the statewide teachers unions bought into the teacher compensation system that they helped developed, and as a result it is serving as a blueprint around the state.

But this buy in won’t be instant. The state’s Educator Standards Board (made up of teachers and administrators) took about 2 years to develop the standards, but the result was an incredibly rich, detailed evaluation system that has a real hope of improving the profession.

And because the system was developed with teachers, not dictated to them, the chances of this system being successful rather than resented is much greater. Yet despite all these attributes, some Ohio reformers weren’t satisfied. They wanted teachers to have tests count for “at least” 50% of an evaluation, not “up to” 50%. Which brings me to the issue of reformer confidence.

I am still looking for the peer-reviewed, objective, longitudinal study that demonstrates tying teacher compensation to student outcomes substantially improves those outcomes. The first study done in Tennessee showed zero impact on student outcomes, and they offered up to a 33% bonus for high test scores.

So why the fascination with the “at least” 50% idea?

This allegiance to ideas that may or may not end up working to improve education is perhaps many reformers’ greatest blind spot.

While many reformers seem bent on blaming teachers for the system’s “failures”, nearly all those reformers were taught by a public school teacher how to think creatively and critically enough to want to reform education.

And there are many ideas that peer-reviewed research has shown would have a great chance of working, like smaller classes in early grades, which could increase the likelihood of graduation for kids in poverty by more than 100%.

Many reformers forget that teachers are proud people who want to be great at what they do. Dismissing their ideas, or worse yet, not even entertaining them, is a terrible mistake because it alienates a proud, committed group of people.

Mayor Emmanuel knows how to negotiate. His experience in Congress and the White House should give him the direction to work this out.

Treat it like a budget: resolve what you can now, and on the issues that cannot be resolved today, pledge to work with Chicago’s teachers on workplace and compensation reforms. Set up a commission where teachers have a strong voice. Give them 18-24 months to meet several broad goals on compensation and workplace changes that are based on peer-reviewed, objective research. Then commit to implementing and, most importantly funding those agreements.

While the development of this kind of plan could take longer initially, with the teacher buy in this process promises, the district likely will be farther along in 5 years than it would be if terms were dictated.

Chicago reformers will be surprised just how willing Chicago’s teachers are to be part of the solution. So both sides should end this thing and move forward together."

Here is Dr. Paul Thomas of Furman University's expanded take.

Here is Dr. Andrea Kayne Kaufman's expanded take.

 

Should Homeschooler Be On State Board of Education?

Something interesting is happening in Southeast Ohio. A gentleman named Philip Gerth is running for the District 9 seat on the Ohio State Board of Education, which ostensibly oversees public education policy for the State of Ohio.

UPDATED HERE

Mr. Gerth is a lawyer who has fought vigorously for homeschoolers' rights to be left alone by public oversight, even if that lack of oversight occasionally leads to children being unspeakably neglected.

What makes Mr. Gerth's candidacy interesting is he apparently homeschools his children. Here is what appears to be his family's website describing their homeschooling experience.

Now here's a fascinating possibility. Mr. Gerth, it appears, distrusts schools so much he won't put his children in any of them. Neither public, nor private, nor Charter School. Yet he is running to be part of the body that oversees ... schools. Why would he do that?

Will anyone ask him?

In fairness, I should mention that his opponent, Stephanie Dodd, is the wife of one of my former colleagues in the Ohio House, Dan Dodd.

Romney's Plan Actually Whacks Education

Last night's debate had many divergent claims and assertions made by Gov. Romney that were entirely opposite of what his plans have been for the last 18 months. But the claims he made on education really were remarkable.

(And that doesn't count his support for the voucherization of American education, which would completely destroy the vision of the Founding Fathers. But that's another story.)

He claimed in the debate that "I’m not going to cut education funding. I don’t have any plan to cut education funding."

As Innovation Ohio pointed out today, that is not what his education plan says, however. As part of his plan, he calls for federal spending cuts that amount to 11% across the board in year 1 and another 39% over the subsequent decade. That includes education.

Ohio keeps track of federal education spending by district  here. An 11% cut would be $188 million, with another $669 million over the next 10 years. Those cuts include cuts to Charter Schools, which also receive federal funding.

It's simple arithmetic to figure out how much your district would lose and what that means for districts.

Just a couple examples: Trimble Local in Appalachian Athens County would lose the equivalent of about 25 mills of federal revenue. Southern Local in Appalachian Perry County would lose 20 mills. Meanwhile, Cleveland would have nearly all of the 15-mill levy to fund its Transformation Plan wiped out by the Romney cuts. And that's assuming the levy passes in November.

Don't be fooled by rhetoric.

These are the cold, hard facts. I wish they weren't.

I Appear in EdWeek Today

During the Chicago teachers strike, I decided to write to Education Week -- the country's preeminent K-12 education journal about my experience in Ohio and what I learned about handling House Bill 1 in 2009. EdWeek ran a much condensed version today that gets to the heart of the column.

About 25 years ago, my dad was published in EdWeek too. Quite a day.

ECOT Worse than Average District and Costs the State about 2x More

The more I thought about Nick Wilson's quote in the recent State Impact e-Schools story, the more I felt like I had to say something about it specifically. Wilson is the spokesman for the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) -- Ohio's oldest and largest e-School. For those who need a refresher, here's what he said:

"(Wilson would) rather compare ECOT’s costs and performance to the state’s urban school districts, which spend more than the $10,700 state average. 'We spend less than half that and achieve average to above average results,' he said. 'That’s how I would view it.'"
 

I addressed the whole "please compare us to urban districts" piece yesterday.  Now I want to address the portion of his comment about achieving "average results". First of all, I don't remember anyone affiliated with a Charter School ever claiming that they would produce "average results" before. Prior to Mr. Wilson, they have stuck to the cheaper and better argument. If they didn't perform, they at least feigned a willingness to improve.

Yet even by Mr. Wilson's remarkably low, "average results" standard, ECOT is performing far worse than the average public school district. Remember, ECOT educates 10,400 students. Comparing their performance with a school building of 200 children is unfair to all parties. ECOT is a district-sized operation. So I'm going to compare them with districts. The data come from last year's full report card because the state has yet to release the full report this year.

It's not even close.

ECOT met 5 of 26 state performance designations. The average district met 22. Only 31% of ECOT's 3rd grade math students were proficient. The average district had 81% proficient. The average difference on grade-level proficiency scores between ECOT and the average district was 26 percentage points.

The average school district has better attendance than ECOT, where students only have to log on to computers to demonstrate attendance, not figure out how to get to school because their busing route was cut. ECOT's Performance Index score is 16 percent lower than the average school district's. And their graduation rate? Try a tick over 40 percent. The average school district graduates more than 94 percent of its children.

In which solar system, in which galaxy, in which universe is ECOT providing "above average to average results" as Mr. Wilson claims?

Because it sure isn't this one.

Oh, there are at least two measures in which ECOT outperforms public school districts. The state sends about $6,500 per pupil to ECOT for their results. After Charter Schools, like ECOT, take their cut, the state sends $3,390 per pupil to school districts for their results.

Another one? How about this: the last two years ECOT's graduating class had their commencement addresses given by Gov. John Kasich and former State Superintendent of Public Instruction Stan Heffner.

You think ECOT founder William Lager's huge campaign contributions have anything to do with that?

Ohio E-Schools Boondoggle

State Impact Ohio and the Plain Dealer teamed up on a great story about e-Schools and, significantly, how they are financed. The reporters' work confirmed (and updated) much of what Innovation Ohio produced last year in our e-Schools report.

What struck me, though, was Nick Wilson's reaction. Wilson is the spokesman for the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT). In the story he is quoted saying this:

"(Wilson would) rather compare ECOT’s costs and performance to the state’s urban school districts, which spend more than the $10,700 state average. 'We spend less than half that and achieve average to above average results,' he said. 'That’s how I would view it.'
 

Beyond the obvious point of questioning why state taxpayers are paying ECOT double the amount of a local school district for what ECOT admits is "average to above average results," should ECOT be compared with the state's urban districts?

Let's take a look, shall we?

According to the latest Charter School Annual Report, ECOT had a 23% minority population, 78% economically disadvantaged, with 20% of their kids having special needs. They have so few English Language Learners that the state doesn't even count them. And again, ECOT educates 10,400 children.

And the Big 8? The average Big 8 district has the following demographic makeup:

The Big 8 have an average of 70% minority students, 85% economically disadvantaged students, 15% special needs students, and 4% English Language Learners.

So ECOT serves significantly smaller percentages of minorities, economically disadvantaged, and struggling English speaking kids. ECOT has slightly more Special Needs children. So why, exactly, should ECOT be compared with the Big 8?

In fact, the e-Schools serve significantly smaller percentages of minority, economically disadvantaged, special needs and English Language Learners than their Charter School brethren.

The average statewide e-School (where 90% of the children who attend online schools go) has 21% minority students, 63% economically disadvantaged students, 16% special needs students and .04% ELL students. The average brick-and-mortar Charter School has the following demographic make-up: 66% minority, 73% economically disadvantaged, 25% special needs and 3.6% ELL.

So is it even fair to compare e-Schools with Charter Schools?