THE
OHIO EDUCATION GADFLY
A Bi-Weekly Bulletin of News and
Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Volume 4, Number 11. May 12, 2010
————————————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————————————
Fordham plans to merge its sponsorship effort
Charter school supporters have argued for multiple charter school authorizers within a state since the first schools opened in the early 1990s. The Center for Education Reform, for example, writes that "charter schools grow and flourish in environments that provide multiple ways for groups to obtain charters to open." There can be, however, too much of a good thing. When it comes to authorizing in Ohio there are simply more sponsors than the state needs or can effectively support, especially if school quality is job one.
Under present law, charter sponsors can charge school fees of up to three percent of their per-pupil funding. It is no stretch to say that, for many sponsors in Ohio, quality sponsorship costs more than such fees can generate. Consider the numbers for a moment -- the state has 67 active sponsors. Two of these -- the Lucas County ESC and the Ohio Council of Community Schools (both based in Toledo) -- collectively authorize one-third of all of the Buckeye State's charter schools. The state's remaining 65 sponsors authorize on average three schools each. Fifty-two sponsors authorize two or fewer schools.
Yet quality sponsorship costs money to deliver. For example, sponsors need the resources to meet the legal costs of closing a school, which can accrue quickly.
It is because of limited resources for sponsors and the need for scale and shared expertise that the Fordham Foundation and the Educational Service Center of Central Ohio (ESCCO) are proposing -- with a $50,000 planning grant from the National Association of Charter School Authorizers -- to merge their sponsorship efforts and launch a new statewide charter school sponsor. Collectively, ESCCO and Fordham authorize 12 schools statewide. Together, these schools serve about 3,200 students.
Both organizations believe that it is practically impossible to have reliably good charter schools without competent, conscientious, properly-motivated, and well-funded sponsors. Sponsors are central to ensuring the performance and success of charter schools. We believe all sponsorship decisions must hold the well-being of students paramount.
Further, as we shared in public testimony before the State Board of Education earlier this week, the role of the sponsor must be separate from that of the operator or supplemental services provider. Operators run the day-to-day operation of schools while sponsors hold schools accountable for results. We see it as an inherent conflict of interest when a sponsor also functions as the (paid) purveyor of services to its schools, or blurs the line between operator and sponsor in other ways.
The goal of the proposed merger is a statewide sponsor that can:
Fordham and ESCCO expect to launch a statewide sponsor entity that not only merges the sponsorship responsibilities of our organizations, but offers that option to other organizations that may desire to exit the sponsorship business. Todd Hanes, ESCCO's associate superintendent captured the logic behind this effort when he told the Columbus Dispatch, "The economy of scale, the efficiencies, is really a model for Ohio to look at...It is very difficult for a sponsor with only a few schools to provide high-quality sponsorship services."
Steve Burigana, CEO of the consulting firm Resource Network Inc. and former chief operating officer at the Ohio Department of Education has been hired by Fordham and ESCCO to assist with the creation of the proposed new sponsor. Should we be able to put all the pieces together we expect this new sponsor entity to be up and running by the summer of 2011. Stay tuned for further developments in the coming weeks and months.
by Terry Ryan and Kathryn Mullen Upton
———————————————————————————————————————
Nationally, tide is turning toward smart teacher personnel policies
The D.C. Public Schools and the Washington Teachers Union just reached an agreement on a new teacher contract. Reformers are calling it the boldest of its kind. Hailed by New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein as a "game-changer," the contract would install a voluntary merit-pay component (with salaries some call "eye-popping" -- $140,000 or more a year), remove forced hiring and transfer of teachers and require "mutual consent" hiring, and reduce seniority's role in layoff decisions to just 10 percent of the equation. DC's effort to fundamentally re-work its teacher contract could not be timelier. As districts and schools across the land are being forced to lay off thousands of teachers, many are rethinking the cost effectiveness (and common sense) of existing teacher policies.
In fact, a broad coalition of national education groups -- Children's Defense Fund, Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, Democrats for Education Reform, Education Equality Project, Education Reform Now, The Education Trust, The Mind Trust, National Council on Teacher Quality, and The New Teacher Project -- recently came together in support of eliminating "last hired, first fired" policies. The coalition, which represents a broad swath of the political spectrum, argues that the proposed $23 billion federal "Keep Our Educators Working Act of 2010" (which would help stave off the tidal wave of teacher layoffs) should be paired with a requirement that states and districts put an end to seniority-based teacher layoffs.
Such a change would be an important step toward freeing up struggling school districts to manage their fiscal nightmares with the least negative impact on student learning. As pink slips paper the state (Cleveland says it will need to lay off 545 teachers; Columbus, 164; Parma, 50; Dayton, 46; Youngstown, 29; and the list goes on), superintendents ought to have the ability to keep their best teachers, regardless of whether they are outstanding novice educators or high-performing veterans.
Meanwhile, as Cincinnati and other Ohio districts embark on contract negotiations, DC's contract should be seen as a common sense model for replication. It unties hiring, professional development, compensation, and antiquated regulations and replaces them with systems that are aligned with the district's new evaluation system (IMPACT), all of which are rooted in performance-based incentives. Specifically:
DC's new teacher contract is in stark contrast to what is, or rather isn't, happening in Ohio. Take for example the recent announcement from the Ohio Department of Education about what the state's Race to the Top application does not do. It does not:
DC's bold plan faces challenges. It is intertwined with a new teacher evaluation system that took much energy and time to develop (and which figures in student performance data, a point of contention in Ohio). Further, there are serious questions about whether the political will to carry out the contract would dissolve if Mayor Fenty loses re-election and if Chancellor Michelle Rhee were to get the boot.
All politics aside, the contract is revolutionary because it fundamentally re-alters the way the district recruits, compensates, and retains its most effective teachers. Such reforms are also needed in Ohio, and the sooner the better.
by Jamie Davies O'Leary and Emmy L. Partin
Public preschool findings a mixed bag
Should Ohioans worry that recent cuts to early childhood education might widen the preschool access gap between Ohio and other states? Yes, according to a new report by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. But state leaders can remedy this problem by enacting smart changes to early learning programs in the next budget.
The 2009 State Preschool Yearbook, the seventh annual survey of state-funded prekindergarten programs across the country, gives Ohio less than impressive scores, compared to peer states, and follows an October 2009 PreK Now report that lambasted the Buckeye State for cutting preschool programming by $11.5 million.
According to NIEER's yearbook, Ohio ranks 30th among states in the number of four-year-olds enrolled in public preschool, with eight percent of them in state-funded programs, and 10th for three-year-olds, with five percent of them attending public preschool. The programs themselves don't get high marks for quality -- Ohio's two primary preschool programs met only three and five (out of 10) quality standards. Nonetheless, we are spending a lot on preschool -- Ohio's state spending per child of $6,904 far exceeded the national average of $4,143.
Although diminished access to early learning opportunities surely warrants concern (the 2009 PreK Now report estimated 12,000 fewer low-income children would be served as a result of the cuts), the NIEER ranking alone isn't cause for alarm. Ohio ranks lower than many states for four-year-old access in large part because other states have mandated universal preschool programs. Among three-year-olds, Ohio ranks better than the majority of its peers. A more important inquiry is to what extent do Ohio's low-income three- and four-year-olds have access to preschool?
NIEER laments that this year's survey "confirmed [their] worries about the effects of the recession on state pre-k." NIEER says Gov. Strickland's decision during the last budget cycle to discontinue the Early Learning Initiative (ELI, the Ohio preschool program ranking highest according to NIEER's indicators, and that aligns preschool with K-12 state academic standards) was unfortunate, and calls for restoring this program in the next state budget.
Still, reports such as these should be read carefully. Preschool advocates often evaluate and rank states based on universal access, but observers must keep two things in mind. First, early learning opportunities hold the most promise for low-income children. Second, Ohio (along with most states) is facing further budget cuts and must make extraordinarily difficult spending trade-offs (evidenced by the fact that Gov. Strickland, an early childhood advocate, cut ELI).
Looking ahead to the next budget, Ohio would do well to reexamine the evidence-based model's all-day kindergarten mandate, reevaluate preschool cuts, and consider restoring targeted funding for both preschool and all-day K for the kids who would benefit from it the most.
by Jamie Davies O'Leary and Emmy L. Partin
_____________________________________________________________________________
Seeing all sides of the state's new science standards
The State Board of Education is slated to adopt new academic content standards in science at its June meeting. Lynn Elfner, executive director of the Ohio Academy of Science, and Stan W. Heffner, associate superintendent at the Ohio Department of Education, have been sparring in the press (subscription only) over the proposed standards. The Gadfly asked Elfner and Heffner to address their differences by answering seven key questions about the science standards. Following are their responses, the content of which has not been edited.
Q. What are the most important concepts that standards should embrace?
Elfner: Science as a way of knowing and learning about the natural world should far outweigh learning any statement expressed as principles, theories, concepts, or laws. Technological design--the heart of a modern economy--is missing. Also missing is the interconnected and interdependent nature of contemporary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics that demands focus on cross-curricular (especially from English and mathematics), problem-solving and communications skills, and real-world applications required by Am. Sub. H.B. 1. Most 21st Century Skills are also absent. Students gain lifetime benefits from the habits of mind--such as skepticism--acquired by understanding the nature of science. The "skill-less" nature of the draft standards manifests itself also in freshmen college students, many of whom are "skill-less" as noted by Ohio college professors who teach introductory STEM classes. The draft standards do not look like science, technology, engineering, or mathematics as practiced today in Ohio and around the world.
Heffner: Standards are statements of what students are expected to know and be able to do with subject matter at a grade or course level. They also inform teachers about what they should know and be able to teach.
Students proficient in science are expected to know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world; generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations; understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge; and participate productively in scientific practices and discourse. Students need to engage with the foundational concepts in each discipline, explore the implications of these concepts to the real world, utilize technological and mathematical tools, and abide by the rules of evidence.
The revised science standards have been developed in two phases. Phase I addresses the subject matter that students should know (the "what"). Phase II, model curricula, will ensure that the content and skills in the standards are taught (the "how"), and it will include specific expectations for what students should be able to do.
Q. How should science skills be assessed?
Elfner: Science skills should be assessed through direct observation of the student's ability to do science and communicate it to peers and professionals. These need to be open-ended assessments, both short and long term, and focus, in part, in areas or fields of personal interest or curiosity of students. That's the primary way to achieve the standards' vision that students 1) know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world; 2) generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations, distinguishing science from pseudoscience; 3) understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge; and 4) participate productively in scientific practices and discourse.
Heffner: A variety of measures can and should be used to assess science skills. Performance-based assessments, in which students engage in the skills of scientific inquiry, are a highly effective way to assess science skills. Students can best understand how science is done by the doing of science. It is the best way students will gain sufficient understanding of scientific knowledge and scientific processes to enable them to distinguish what is science from what is not science, and to make informed decisions.
Q. What's the balance between science knowledge, concepts, and science skills?
Elfner: The balance depends on the topic, approach, and purpose, but science skills--such as observation, problem definition, hypothesis development, experimental design, data collection, display and analysis--must be grounded in full understanding of scientific knowledge and concepts (principles, laws) with firsthand experience in the specific topic. Increasingly students see the relevance of science as a tool to solve problems that affect their lives including energy, behavior, health, and the environment. They need both science skills as well as specific content knowledge of concepts.
Heffner: All three must be intimately linked for students to become proficient in science. The balance will shift depending upon the nature of the classroom and the proficiency of individual students, the material to be learned, and the resources available. Phase II of the revised standards provides teachers with information and resources to develop lesson and unit plans targeting the knowledge, concepts and skills that students should know by the end of that grade level.
Q. How much better or worse are these standards than what we have now?
Elfner: The massive reduction in the detailed content of the PK-8 draft standards versus the 2002 standards is most welcome. Strict adherence to the clear, simplified goals, definitions, and robust philosophies in the Overview could thrust Ohio to the forefront of national standards and presage the content of the National standards due in two years. However, beyond the Overview, the draft standards are less effective than the 2002 standards because they avoid content on the nature and workings of contemporary science and are silent on technology and technological design. In the triage approach to reduce content, concepts central to understanding the nature of science were lost in favor of expressing statements. The essential way science works is gone.
Heffner: The revised standards are fewer, clearer, and push for higher cognitive demands. They are evidence and research-based, aligned with college and work expectations and national standards, and internationally benchmarked. They include rigorous content and application of higher order skills and build upon the strengths and lessons of current state standards. We are introducing a new format for teachers to embed scientific inquiry with content and help students reach the higher expectations.
Q. What will these standards mean to teachers?
Elfner: Without significant commitment of time for in-service education, PK-8 teachers will dwell on sterile statements and struggle to make any sense of relating inquiry skills vis-à-vis the statements. Only if coupled with robust in-service will teachers rise above their "favorite" topics or lessons, adhere to the broad range of topics in the draft standards, and implement scientific inquiry as both content and pedagogy. Teachers will have no guidance for technological design--the heart of the 21st Century economy--or the nature of science. This statement in the high school syllabi -- "The following information may be taught in any order" -- will find little support from most teachers who understand the structure of knowledge in a particular field and the importance of building on precursor knowledge. Simply stated, there are logical sequences to teach most subjects, especially science.
Heffner: In addition to the subject matter content to be learned, teachers will also now know what students should have been taught in prior grades, the depth of content that needs to be addressed at their grade, and how that topic will be expanded in later grades. This will facilitate lesson and unit planning. Each content statement will also provide teachers with instructional resources that will include pedagogical suggestions, information on differentiated instruction, misconceptions that can be expected when teaching a topic and connections to other discipline areas. Finally, teachers will also know what cognitive demands students are expected to master and how they will be assessed.
Q. What do these standards mean to students?
Elfner: Certainly, in the short term, students will continue to memorize facts or statements in isolation from scientific skills and 21st Century Skills required by Am. Sub. H.B. 1. The draft standards fail to fully achieve the robust vision that students ought to be able to 1) know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world; 2) generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations, distinguishing science from pseudoscience; 3) understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge; and 4) participate productively in scientific practices and discourse. The Ohio Department of Education has "promised the world" for the content of the model curriculum document to be approved in 2011. However, most schools likely will ignore the non-binding model curriculum document.
Heffner: Students will be challenged to engage more deeply with science and make connections to the world. Beginning in the primary grades, students will be encouraged to observe and ask questions about the environment around them, to develop simple explanations for the observations, and use simple instruments to extend their senses.
By middle school they will begin identifying questions that can be answered through scientific investigations; designing and conducting experiments; describing, predicting, explaining, recognizing alternative explanations; using technological design to explore solutions to problems; using mathematics and technology as appropriate; and incorporating the rules of evidence.
By the end of high school they will have built upon the scientific inquiry and design skills to design more complex investigations utilizing mathematics, technology and other disciplinary skills to enhance their understanding, formulate and revise explanations and models using logic and evidence, and communicate and defend scientific arguments.
Q. How do these standards treat evolution?
Elfner: In a word, "ignored" is how the PK-8 draft treats evolution. As a term, evolution does not appear in the PK-8 document. The PK-8 document only vaguely refers to evolution in terms of extinct organisms (fossils). The majority of Ohio elementary science teachers will not be able to teach evolution, the underlying tenet of modern biology, with this document. For example, natural selection and mutation--underlying concepts of evolution--are missing. For a teacher well-grounded in biology, this will not be a problem because he or she can relate the principles of evolution to the genetic, ecological, and geological material in the PK-8 document. High school teachers fare much better because the biology syllabus covers most of the major principles of evolution. The major weakness of the high school biology syllabus in evolution is the lack of information on microorganisms as they relate to disease, health and industrial applications. On a 0 to 10 scale, the PK-8 standards score a zero and the high school biology syllabus might score an eight.
Heffner: There is no significant change between the current and new standards in the treatment of the science of evolution.
Lynn Elfner is a former public school teacher and represents the Ohio Academy of Science on various committees and panels involving science and education affairs in Ohio. The Academy promotes scientific research and science education and is the annual organizer of Ohio's State Science Day. Stan Heffner oversees the Center for Curriculum and Assessment at the Ohio Department of Education. He is a former high school principal, school superintendent, and deputy secretary of education and cultural affairs at the South Dakota Department of Education.
———————————————————————————————————————
Award-winning junior scientists at Phoenix Community Learning Center
Students from Phoenix Community Learning Center, one of six Fordham-sponsored charter schools, beat out students from eight other Cincinnati-area schools in a local robot competition in late February.
Phoenix's team included six students who worked for months on Buddy 2.0, a one-and-a-half pound Lego robot that stands on two feet and rolls like a tank. Buddy uses a sensor to detect colors, which represent different environmental hazards that he is designed to clean up.
Starting in November, two students worked to build and program the robot, while the others shared the responsibilities of building a floor for Buddy to roll on and writing a report on environmental hazards. Students stayed after school three days each week to work on their robot, but as February drew closer they started to spend every day after school working on the project.
In March, the students made an oral presentation of their report and let Buddy do his stuff for a six-judge panel at the competition, which was hosted by the College of Applied Sciences at the University of Cincinnati.
For their work, the students won three first-place trophies (Total Points-Winner, Best Robot, and Creativity) and two second place trophies (Research Display and Oral Presentation).
"I think that it didn't really hit home until we actually came back and could take a breath," said Mrs. Sushumna Means, a teacher who served as an advisor to the students on the project.
Ms. Jenna Amatull , a science teacher who also advised the students, indicated that the experience was valuable from more than just an academic perspective.
"They've said several times they were working with students they wouldn't typically interact with," Ms. Amatulli said. "They really came together as a team. We had an incident with a student who was having behavior issues in class. The team really rallied around him. The girls were crying by the end of it."
Since the competition, the students and their teachers attended an American Society for Quality dinner, and presented Buddy at Duke Energy's tech show on May 4.
by Tim Hoffine
———————————————————————————————————————
Needle in a Haystack: McGregor Elementary
As we've mentioned previously, McGregor Elementary in Canton stands out for consistently delivering academic results despite serving an area that's been particularly hard hit by Ohio's industrial decline. After visiting the school, we were particularly impressed with McGregor's relentless focus on data to boost student achievement. Check out our video to see what the school's staff believes is key to their school's extraordinary success.
McGregor and seven other Ohio schools will be featured in Needles in a Haystack: Lessons from Ohio's high-performing, high-need urban schools, due May 25th from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
by Eric Ulas
————————————————————————————————————————
Short Reviews
Learning as We Go: Why School Choice is Worth the Wait
Paul T. Hill
Hoover Institution Press
2010
Why hasn't school choice been the smashing success many predicted back in the 1990s? Why hasn't it had a more substantial impact on public education, via competition and market forces? Paul Hill tackles these questions in Learning as We Go, a book so relevant to the Buckeye State -- with all its battles over choice and disappointingly mixed results -- that it might as well be dedicated to Ohio.
Hill acknowledges the imperfections of school choice, which was intended to stimulate what he calls a "virtuous cycle" of continuous improvement in education. What is the virtuous cycle? Schools of choice create competition, parents vote with their feet and enroll their students in schools of choice, public schools feel pressure to improve, entrepreneurs create innovative new schools based on rising demand, new schools pay "premiums" for better teachers, and so on.
But hindsight being 20/20, the public education monopoly is hard to break down, information is imperfect (parents don't always choose the best school option), and choice programs often are, unfortunately, no better than the status quo. Hill identifies and analyzes political and policy barriers, market imperfections, and other trends that have thrown a wrench into the virtuous cycle, namely:
Such barriers have caused many breakdowns and detours for the vehicle of school choice. But not all hope is lost. Hill concludes with recommendations that would enable choice to work better, including: a funding system that ties dollars to students, finding ways to scale proven choice models, improving the teacher labor force, and "re-missioning" education toward continuous improvement--such as creating more performance-based, "portfolio-run" districts. Creating the right climate for the growth and success of school choice isn't easy, but Hill is right -- it's worth the wait. You can buy the book here.
E-Learning 2010: Assessing the Agenda for Change
Education Week
April 2010
For an intro to cyberschooling -- whether full-time, online delivery of classes or "blended models" (the combination of online classes with traditional face-to-face instruction) --check out this special report from Education Week. The report highlights the increase of national online learning opportunities for students and explains their benefits: they create more course options for students, expand individualized delivery methods, and result in potential efficiencies for schools and districts that may translate to lower operating costs.
In addition to the "101" material, there are some key components associated with online delivery of material worth noting. First and foremost, there's a human component that is critical: a mentor or guide for students. This mentor doesn't necessarily need to be a content expert (as there are teachers for that), but the mentor does need to oversee coursework, troubleshoot problems, and be available for regular communication with student.
Second, course content should be packaged in chunks of time conducive to learning from a computer or other appropriate device (i.e., don't give a kid two back-to-back three-hour blocks of reading and math online -- you'll lose them). Third, online learning programs should be conscious of providing sufficient interactive opportunities for students, regardless of whether the course is in a fixed medium (e.g., a recorded webinar) or live.
There are some interesting policy nuggets in the report, too -- principally that China's K-12 material has gone digital, as has Mexico's, and that Turkey now educates 15 million students annually online. Meanwhile, the U.S. (sigh) is still grappling with state caps on enrollment and backward funding mechanisms such as state appropriations (as opposed to funding that follows the child), neither of which make much sense given today's economic context of shrinking resources and budget cuts. The report is available here.
Trends in the Use of School Choice: 1993 to 2007
National Center for Education Statistics
Sarah Grady, Stacey Bielick, and Susan Aud
April 2010
This statistical analysis from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) breaks down trends in enrollment in all major venues for K-12 education: public and private, charter and district, plus homeschooling. The report also examines characteristics of students as well as parents' satisfaction with and involvement in such schools.
The study is an update to previous NCES reports on school choice and at 77 pages contains more data than any review can thoroughly describe. But, a few trends during this 14-year span stand out:
Thus, the expansion of school choice has occurred mostly in public schools. But while NCES's trend data is very useful for broad comparisons, the report doesn't drill down to indicate whether public school choice trends reflect intra-district or inter-district choice, or charter schools. Still, NCES provides a thorough outline of school choice trends, and illuminates that "choice" doesn't undermine public schools. Ohio would benefit greatly by collecting and tracking such robust data on school choice that could highlight similar trends. Read the report here.
by Tim Hoffine
————————————————————————————————————————
What do lotteries and cartels have to do with education?
by Tim Hoffine
————————————————————————————————————————
The Ohio Education Gadfly is published bi-weekly (ordinarily on Wednesdays, with occasional breaks, and in special editions) by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Have something to say? Email the editor at [email protected]. Would you like to be spared from the Gadfly? Email [email protected] with "unsubscribe gadfly" in the text of your message. You are welcome to forward the Gadfly to others, and from our website you can even email individual articles. If you have been forwarded a copy of Gadfly and would like to subscribe, you may email [email protected] with "subscribe gadfly" in the text of the message. To read archived issues, go to our website and click on the Ohio Education Gadfly link. Aching for still more education news and analysis? Check out the original Education Gadfly.
Nationally and in Ohio, the Thomas
B. Fordham Institute, along with its sister organization the Thomas
B. Fordham Foundation, strives to close America's vexing achievement gaps
by raising standards, strengthening accountability, and expanding high-quality
education options for parents and families. As a charter-school sponsor in Ohio,
the Foundation joins with schools to affirm a relentless commitment to high
expectations for all children, accountability for academic results, and transparency
and organizational integrity, while freeing the schools to operate with minimal
red tape. The Foundation and Institute are neither connected with nor sponsored
by Fordham University.
