The Education Gadfly Weekly

Ohio’s college pipeline has sprung a leak--and both high schools and colleges are struggling to make good on the promise to educate (and graduate) their students. That was the message gleaned from the recent ACT Ohio conference and a compelling keynote address by the Education Trust’s director (and 2007 Fordham Prize winner) Kati Haycock.

The challenges facing the state’s high schools are plain to see. Just 45 percent of Ohio students taking the ACT and graduating in 2006 scored well enough on the math portion to succeed in college level algebra (see here). This figure drops to 32 percent for Hispanic students and 13 percent for African Americans. Only 24 percent of test-takers scored well enough on all four sections (English, math, reading and science) to be deemed fully ready for college (compared to 15 percent of Hispanics and 4 percent of African Americans). Too many Ohioans never graduate from high school at all. In 2003, Ohio's graduation rate was just 73 percent for all students--and 51 percent for African Americans (see here).

For those who do graduate, the rising cost of college in the Buckeye State may still place a postsecondary degree out of reach. In 2006-07, tuition at Ohio’s four-year universities was 47 percent higher than the national average; tuition at two-year colleges was 54 percent higher (see here). Such inflated prices can, in part, be traced back to Ohio’s lower subsidy of higher education, compared to other states. Ohio ranks 40^th among the 50 states for its per-student higher education appropriation. In 2005, it contributed just $0.34 for every dollar of federal Pell grants to low-income students (the median of the five most generous states was $0.82 per dollar--see here).

Assuming students do matriculate, lackluster success rates (determined by students’ degree attainment) are a troublesome legacy for many universities. Just 36 percent of Ohio’s first-time, full-time freshman (in fall 1999) went on to graduate with a bachelor’s degree after four years; that figure rose to just 56 percent after six years. Minority students fare much worse, with just 17 percent graduating in four years, and 36 percent after six. Ohio University had some of the highest success rates among state public universities, graduating 70 percent of all students and 69 percent of its under-represented minority students over six years in 2004. The Ohio State University’s main campus posted an overall six-year success rate of 62 percent and graduated 47 percent of it minority students. The University of Akron graduated just 35 percent overall, and only 18 percent of its minority students over six years (see here).

Many initiatives to improve such dismal figures focus on high schools, and rightly so. The recently passed Ohio Core, for instance, will hopefully ensure that students are much better prepared for the demands of college coursework. And the creation of a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) system of schools, if done sensibly (see here), could very well offer students valuable opportunities to pursue a rigorous college preparatory curriculum. But one thing was made clear by Ms. Haycock and others at the recent ACT Ohio conference. To mend and strengthen the state’s college pipeline, colleges and universities will need more attention (and scrutiny) from policymakers and the general public, particularly in the areas of student access, retention and success--not to mention overall value for student (or parent) and taxpayer dollars.

One of the toughest challenges facing charter schools, in Ohio and elsewhere, is the demands of serving children with special needs. Charter schools, like their district counterparts, educate any and all students who come to them (a fact still lost on many critics). When a youngster has special needs that require additional services, the charter school is required by state and federal law to provide them. The school receives state and federal aid to do so, but even with financial support, this can be daunting for a stand-alone school that serves only 200 or 300 students.

Providing quality special education services, as any charter or district coordinator can attest, is no simple matter. Special education is not just a set of programs delivered to students, but a comprehensive process for identifying, evaluating and monitoring (on a continual basis) the needs of students with disabilities ranging from mild or moderate to severe. Teachers and intervention specialists must identify and work with parents to refer an identified student for an evaluation. A psychologist, either on staff or contracted, must then evaluate him or her by assessing a broad range of cognitive, emotional and motor skills. Based on the evaluation, the school’s special education staff, along with the psychologist, educators and others, must then create an Individual Education Plan (IEP). The IEP will dictate the types of instruction and assistance the students should receive, and lists the goals and objectives for future progress.

Once a student’s IEP is developed, only then can programs and services be engaged to meet his or her unique needs. These programs and services can run the gamut, depending on the nature and severity of the disability--from one-on-one time with intervention specialists and pull-out sessions with speech pathologists or behavior therapists, to an entirely different education program that may necessitate clinical or medical support.

The challenge for many charter schools is how to provide the variety of services students might need (rarely can these needs be met by one individual) with limited financial resources, and absent the large-scale special education infrastructure available to school districts that serve thousands or even tens of thousands of children. Yet to do so is not only required by law, but also an integral function of ensuring all children receive a comprehensive and high quality education (the very reason many parents choose to enroll their students in charters in the first place).

Many charters in Ohio currently purchase special education services from their sponsors or authorizers. While this may seem a mutually beneficial arrangement for schools and their sponsors, it is less than ideal and potentially even unethical. It creates serious conflicts of interests for a charter school sponsor to sell academic (as well as financial or organizational) services to schools, and then hold them accountable for performance that has been driven in part by those services. Furthermore, a school might find itself unable to complain about services to the sponsor/provider for fear that such complaints might jeopardize the school’s standing. Schools could be even be pressured into buying services, regardless of their quality, from unscrupulous authorizers.

Other arrangements may include partnering with local service providers like hospitals or universities and buying à la carte services from county educational service centers or consultants. Yet even these piece-meal options can leave charters scrambling to find critical support for special education--including leadership training, special education teacher recruitment, and help navigating state and federal law. Additional support might consist of direct access to part-time therapists, psychologists and already scarce intervention specialists; ongoing professional development for special and general education teachers; access to external resources like clinical services and facilities; and programs for English Language Learners (ELL) requiring speech and language development services.

While there is no quick fix for this complex and growing challenge (indeed, more students are being identified with special needs each year), two options, among others, might be worth considering by school operators, policymakers, and charter school support organizations. The first is a Shared Special Education Director Program (discussed in detail in this Project Intersect report), which offers support to member schools seeking to build organizational capacity. A Shared Special Education Director Program provides schools with administrative, legal, and financial assistance to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. It also offers training to school staff about their roles and responsibilities in educating students with special needs. The Minnesota Department of Education currently operates such a program (through the Minnesota Charter Schools Special Education Project), whereby charter schools can purchase various levels of support based on their needs (general services are free). While not providing services directly to students, a Shared Special Education Director Program can alleviate many of the administrative and organizational demands facing schools, allowing school leaders and special education staff to focus more readily on instruction.

The second, more comprehensive option is a charter school special education cooperative or consortium. Under this model, a cooperative receives member schools’ special education funding directly (on a voluntary basis), and then provides needed special education services to their students. For charters who need specialists or programs on a part-time basis, the cooperative allows schools to share staff and services in a more cost efficient manner. Compelling models of such cooperatives already exist in Florida, Washington, DC and California. Across the line in Indiana, Ball State University’s Virtual Special Education Cooperative (VSEC) provides its charter school members with an array of programs and services, a large portion of which can be delivered online or via video conferencing. VSEC also retains a cadre of coordinators and therapists that can provide on-site therapeutic services, assessments and skills training to students--as well as professional development to teachers.

Through similar innovative partnerships and some creative thinking, Ohio’s charters could gain valuable assistance and guarantee their special education students reliable access to high quality programs and services.

It’s no secret that my colleagues and I at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation have been critics of the Dayton Public Schools (DPS) over the past decade and have done our best--not good enough--to help create sound educational alternatives for kids whose prospects were blighted by the system’s disabilities.

This wasn’t ill-will, much less an animus toward public education. It was quite simply that DPS had languished for years as Ohio’s lowest performing public school district (618^th out of 618); the district spent less than 50 percent of its budget on instruction, which included scant attention to academic achievement; and, despite clear signs of distress, it seemed all but immune to reform.

The Council of the Great City Schools, an advocate and support organization for large urban districts, succinctly summed up the situation in early 2002: “Dayton Public Schools are in crisis. Student achievement is low. Funding is tenuous. Buildings are dilapidated. And the public is clearly looking at its options. Without change, parents will find or create them. The warning signs are everywhere.”

Then things began to change. Today DPS is far from where it needs to get, but its performance is strengthening and important milestones are being passed. This gradual turnaround began when the reform-minded Kids First slate, led by Gail Littlejohn, took command of the school board five years ago and selected Dr. Percy Mack to serve as the district’s new superintendent.

Since that time, the Dayton Public Schools have made slow but steady progress toward academic achievement. The reform team has put into place a cohesive academic strategy; increased the amount of money targeted at instruction to more than 60 percent; raised test scores; and last year moved out of Academic Emergency (the state’s lowest academic rating) and up two notches to Continuous Improvement (the equivalent of a “C”). Responding both to academic common sense and to competition from area private and charter schools, DPS has created several new and innovative school programs like the all-girls Charity Adams School, Dayton Early College Academy and Dayton Technology Design High School. An awesome school-construction program is underway.

At the same time, DPS has also made some painful job cuts (the most recent announced this month) in an effort to right size its operation. And despite real pressure and strike threats from the Dayton Education Association, DPS board members have kept salaries within bounds. In tough fiscal times, laying employees off and reining in new spending, while manifestly unpleasant decisions, represent both competent leadership and good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. 

To remain on its reformist course, DPS now needs help from the city’s taxpayers. A 15-mill operating levy will be on the May ballot. The last levy was passed way back in 1992. If passed, the operating levy would provide Dayton Public Schools with an additional $30 million per year to continue its reform efforts, raise the quality of instruction in its schools, and secure the district’s finances. If it fails the district faces a litany of bad choices, and its future would be in doubt.

The reformers at the district’s helm have earned the opportunity to stay on course. Yes, Dayton voters and taxpayers, including the city’s business and civic leaders, will need to be vigilant as these dollars are spent. Many tough challenges lie ahead and nobody will benefit if the district slips back into its old ways. But some additional time is needed to turn this aircraft carrier. 

In 2005, the Council of the Great City Schools conducted a second review of DPS and its programs. The progress they saw was encouraging. “Understand,” the reviewers wrote, “that the district was very broken but it’s now on the mend. Improvement will take some time and considerable community involvement and support.” DPS leadership has been doing its part. Now it’s time for other Daytonians to do theirs.

A similar version of this editorial was featured in the February 6^th issue of the Dayton Daily News.

Ohio’s college pipeline has sprung a leak--and both high schools and colleges are struggling to make good on the promise to educate (and graduate) their students. That was the message gleaned from the recent ACT Ohio conference and a compelling keynote address by the Education Trust’s director (and 2007 Fordham Prize winner) Kati Haycock.

The challenges facing the state’s high schools are plain to see. Just 45 percent of Ohio students taking the ACT and graduating in 2006 scored well enough on the math portion to succeed in college level algebra (see here). This figure drops to 32 percent for Hispanic students and 13 percent for African Americans. Only 24 percent of test-takers scored well enough on all four sections (English, math, reading and science) to be deemed fully ready for college (compared to 15 percent of Hispanics and 4 percent of African Americans). Too many Ohioans never graduate from high school at all. In 2003, Ohio's graduation rate was just 73 percent for all students--and 51 percent for African Americans (see here).

For those who do graduate, the rising cost of college in the Buckeye State may still place a postsecondary degree out of reach. In 2006-07, tuition at Ohio’s four-year universities was 47 percent higher than the national average; tuition at two-year colleges was 54 percent higher (see here). Such inflated prices can, in part, be traced back to Ohio’s lower subsidy of higher education, compared to other states. Ohio ranks 40^th among the 50 states for its per-student higher education appropriation. In 2005, it contributed just $0.34 for every dollar of federal Pell grants to low-income students (the median of the five most generous states was $0.82 per dollar--see here).

Assuming students do matriculate, lackluster success rates (determined by students’ degree attainment) are a troublesome legacy for many universities. Just 36 percent of Ohio’s first-time, full-time freshman (in fall 1999) went on to graduate with a bachelor’s degree after four years; that figure rose to just 56 percent after six years. Minority students fare much worse, with just 17 percent graduating in four years, and 36 percent after six. Ohio University had some of the highest success rates among state public universities, graduating 70 percent of all students and 69 percent of its under-represented minority students over six years in 2004. The Ohio State University’s main campus posted an overall six-year success rate of 62 percent and graduated 47 percent of it minority students. The University of Akron graduated just 35 percent overall, and only 18 percent of its minority students over six years (see here).

Many initiatives to improve such dismal figures focus on high schools, and rightly so. The recently passed Ohio Core, for instance, will hopefully ensure that students are much better prepared for the demands of college coursework. And the creation of a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) system of schools, if done sensibly (see here), could very well offer students valuable opportunities to pursue a rigorous college preparatory curriculum. But one thing was made clear by Ms. Haycock and others at the recent ACT Ohio conference. To mend and strengthen the state’s college pipeline, colleges and universities will need more attention (and scrutiny) from policymakers and the general public, particularly in the areas of student access, retention and success--not to mention overall value for student (or parent) and taxpayer dollars.