This working paper from the Center on Reinventing Public Education – as part of its National Charter School Research Project – examines the impact of charter school authorizers on student achievement.
This working paper from the Center on Reinventing Public Education – as part of its National Charter School Research Project – examines the impact of charter school authorizers on student achievement. The paper focuses on Ohio, a state that allows a wide variety of entities – public school districts, educational service centers, 13 state universities and 501(c)(3) organizations that meet Ohio Department of Education (ODE) criteria – to authorize (aka, sponsor) charter schools.
Researchers collected longitudinally linked student-level data that spanned from 2004-05 through 2007-08 from ODE. The data were for elementary and middle grades only, and virtual/online charter schools (aka e-schools) were excluded from the study. The report found that when it comes to student achievement in both reading and math, charter schools that were originally authorized by nonprofits, on average, produced the least gains in student achievement, while district-authorized charters had the largest gains (though statistically insignificant). ESC-authorized and state-authorized charters were “statistically indistinguishable” from other charters in both subjects.
The authors note that these findings may reflect Ohio’s ongoing struggle with how to grow and regulate the charter sector, with choice proponents often wishing to expand school choice for the sake of choice (with success defined by the diversity and number of options), and others (including Fordham) cautioning that choice must come with quality controls and a laser focus on performance. The report concludes – and we agree – that the structure of the authorizing entity is not the issue. Regardless of entity type, the key issue is whether the entity is effective at the work of charter school authorizing itself.
“Charter School Authorizers and Student
Achievement”
Center on Reinventing Public
Education
Ron Zimmer, Brian Gill, Kaitlin
Obenauf
December 2010
Add this credible and quantitative research to the growing list of reports finding seniority-based layoffs to be detrimental both to student learning and to the bottom line. From the CEDR, the report analyzes data on over 2,000 Washington state teachers who received reduction-in-force (RIF) notices during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years—primarily on a first hired, last fired model. It then compared these seniority-based layoffs to a number of proposed performance-based layoff models—each using a different metric for value-added. In a computer simulation, the seniority-based model caused student learning to lag by two to four months compared to a performance-based model, and under it African American students were 50 percent more likely to have their teachers laid off than were white students (compared to 20 percent more likely in the performance-based scenario). Further, the study found that performance-based layoffs would save up to 10 percent of the state’s teacher workforce, as fewer tenured, higher-paid teachers would need to be pink-slipped to meet budget quotas. Many states, including Fordham’s home state of Ohio, have laws that require all teacher layoffs to be based on seniority alone—laws that, in light of this study’s findings, legislators would do well to cut.
“Assessing
the Determinants and Implications of Teacher Layoffs”
Center for Education Data and Research
Dan Goldhaber and Roddy Theobald
December 2010
In the fall of 2009, the Gates Foundation commenced an epic task: the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project. Through thousands of hours of videotaped and live classroom observations, student and teacher surveys, and information on student achievement gains, foundation analysts labored to uncover the best indicators of teacher effectiveness, the goal being to craft systemic and reliable evaluation processes and feedback mechanisms for the future. The preliminary findings of this massive initiative are now available. And if they’re a sign what’s to come, teacher evaluations will be in for a major makeover. This preliminary report analyzes two of the project’s five measures of teacher effectiveness—student scores (on both state and external tests) and student survey responses. There were four take-aways: First, a teacher’s past success in producing student gains is highly predictive of that teacher’s ability to do so again. Second, teachers who, according to their students, “teach to the test” do not produce the highest value-added scores for said students; rather, instructors who help their students understand math concepts and reading comprehension yield the highest scores. Third, student perceptions of their teachers are remarkably telling and remain stable across groups of students and across classes taught by the same teacher. Most reflective of teacher effectiveness is students’ perceptions of whether their teacher controls the classroom and challenges them with rigorous work. The analysts end by noting that a combination of these methods provides teachers a more accurate, detailed, and targeted evaluation. These findings are just the beginning of MET. Check back in late spring for the final report—including analyses of classroom observations.
“Learning
about Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching
Project”
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
December 2010
It’s been a while since Gadfly buzzed about legislative hearings or new bills, what with the past legislature renowned for its inactivity. But the new 129th General Assembly already has several education bills in the works, so expect Gadfly to be reporting on capital matters over the coming months.
HB 21 – Virtual charter schools, value-added data, and Teach For America graduates. Sponsored by Rep. Courtney Combs (R-Butler County), the bill is a recycled version of last year’s HB 312 and SB 180 (legislation aiming to make Ohio more competitive for Race to the Top funds, and for which we testified in support). While SB 180 was passed by the Senate, neither bill made it anywhere in the House.
The basic components of the legislation are well-intentioned, but limited. HB 21 would:
HB 30 – School funding. Perhaps the most-talked-about education bill so far, HB 30, sponsored by Rep. Randy Gardner (R-Wood County), would eliminate significant requirements from HB 1 (Gov. Strickland’s “evidence-based” funding model). Specifically, it abolishes of the School Funding Advisory Council, as well as universal all-day kindergarten mandates, requirements for school districts to create “family and civic engagement teams,” and other reporting requirements. File this piece of legislation under both “least surprising” and “most convenient to cash-strapped school districts.” Despite the fact that many district leaders expressed support for these components of the EBM in theory, they were viewed as unfunded mandates, and nothing troubles school leaders more than that ugly phrase.
HB 36 – Calamity days. Co-sponsored by Reps. Casey Kozlowski (R-Pierpont) and John Carey (R-Wellston), the bill would give back two calamity days to Ohio schools districts while also granting schools more authority to lengthen the school day to make up those missed days. Although giving flexibility to districts and schools to determine for themselves how to make up for lost time is commendable (let’s see that kind of autonomy doled out elsewhere in K-12 education), upping excusable calamity days from three to five would be a bad move. We’ve argued before that Ohio’s students simply can’t afford lost instructional time; if anything, the Buckeye State should be moving in the opposite direction – to lengthen the instructional time available to students. No one’s arguing that districts in the midst of a snowstorm can’t cancel school, just that they should make up instructional time beyond three excused days. Rep. Carey said that justifications for the bill included “safety and financial concerns” (Gongwer News; subscription required) but excusing two extra calamity days does nothing to save money, as teachers and principals are still paid for missed days. If anything, it’s wasteful budgeting and lost learning opportunities for children.
Education reform is moving fast in Ohio, and a sudden membership shuffle on the State Board of Education has given Governor Kasich the opportunity to ramp up the pace further, putting his imprint on the state’s schools much faster than his predecessors.
The Ohio House will begin hearings this evening on several pieces of education legislation (see the article above), and the Senate is expected to follow suit next week. While Governor Kasich isn’t likely to unveil his full education platform until he introduces his biennial budget proposal in mid-March, at minimum he is certain to dismantle the evidence-based school funding model, expand school choice options, and revamp Ohio’s public sector collective bargaining laws, including those that affect local teacher and school employee unions.
But whether serious education reforms will be achieved (and sustained) depends on more than just the governor’s and lawmakers’ best ideas and intentions. Success also depends on how well the reforms are implemented, which in turn depends greatly on the governance structure and leadership of education at the state level. In other sectors of state government, the governor appoints agency heads and has fairly broad control over policy implementation. Education is a different beast altogether.
The Ohio Department of Education, responsible for implementing state education laws and policies, is technically independent from the governor. Instead, ODE and its chief, the state superintendent of public instruction, answer to the State Board of Education, a 19-member partially elected, partially appointed body. The complex arrangement is a compromise from the Voinovich era intended to at once give the governor some control over K-12 education while still buffering the sector from frequently changing political winds. The result is a messy and often times ineffective governance structure.
Governor Strickland agreed as much in 2008 when he announced his intent to appoint a “director of education” to serve on his cabinet and take on many of the responsibilities of the state superintendent and state board of education. The idea went nowhere but such a power grab isn’t unprecedented. In 2007, Strickland made a similar move to gain more control over higher education. House Bill 2, which passed with broad bipartisan support, made the Chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents a governor-appointed position and gave most of the power held by the board, which previously governed Ohio’s system of public colleges and universities, to the Chancellor. The board was relegated to an advisory role. Few argue that arrangement hasn’t served Ohio well. In other states, governors have made similar moves in K-12 education. Massachusetts’ Governor Deval Patrick appointed a cabinet-level education secretary in 2008, and Washington’s Governor Christine Gregoire is seeking to establish a similar position in the Evergreen State.
Coming off of November’s election, most observers thought Kasich would need to make a similar move and put in place his own education “czar.” This person would usurp power from a State Board of Education that was seen as hostile, or at best not receptive, to the sorts of education reform ideas coming from the governor-elect.
What a difference two months makes. Kasich now has a number of options when it comes to the optimal education governance arrangement for putting his reform plans into action.
Thanks to power politics in the Ohio Senate, Kasich found himself appointing members to the State Board of Education just a week after taking office. (In contrast, it wasn’t till after two years in office that Governor Strickland could appoint enough members to get the board to his liking.) Now the governor has options beyond creating an “education czar,” including:
If Kasich takes the latter option, could the Buckeye State be the next landing spot for one of the big names in education reform?
The (arguably) biggest name in the game, former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, is off the table, having set up her Students First organization and indicating she doesn’t intend to return to a superintendent position at any level. But what of other known reformers? Certainly any number of big-city district chiefs would view the top Ohio post as a great opportunity to move up to the next level. And might state chiefs who are feeling anti-reform pressure from their new governors, like Rhode Island Commissioner Deborah Gist, be interested in taking the helm in Ohio? Or might the governor turn to some of Ohio’s better known reformers like Bart Anderson, who leads the Educational Service Center of Central Ohio, or Cincinnati Public Schools Superintendent Mary Ronan?
When it comes to education reform, Governor Kasich is in as strong a position as any modern Ohio governor. National reform momentum is converging on the Buckeye State, the GOP-led legislature seems eager to help the governor take on tough battles, and Kasich has the ability to exert more control early on over the state education system than any of his predecessors. There is real potential for him to make great strides and make Ohio a leader in education reform.
Geoffrey Canada, president and CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), spoke at the University of Dayton last week as part of the university’s diversity lecture series. (You can read Dayton Daily News’ nice coverage of it here.) Fordham’s hometown of Dayton is the perfect place to hear Canada’s message. It’s one of Ohio’s poorest cities, and despite all of our efforts on the ground there, the city is a constant reminder of how tragically difficult it is to improve outcomes for poor kids. In Dayton Public Schools, over three fourths of kids attend a school rated D or F. No children go to a school rated Excellent.
Canada’s assessment for Dayton – and the nation – is right. Our communities simply can’t afford to have so many young people unemployed (or in jail), especially African American boys. It’s an issue of global competitiveness and our economic health, but more than that – a moral and spiritual imperative.
Beyond that, one piece of his message really stood out: here in Ohio, we’ve been busy for the past several years thinking about state-level policy issues that inhibit districts and schools from serving kids better, and pushing to lift roadblocks when it comes to reforming K-12 education. Now perhaps more than ever, the Buckeye State stands a chance at successfully rolling back senseless laws and requirements, and untying districts’ hands so that they can pursue meaningful reforms. However, there still remains a gap between what state or local-level policy can achieve, and what it takes to actually exterminate achievement gaps. In that space resides a level of leadership, activism, and drive (that Canada embodies perfectly) that is both difficult to measure and hard to foster. It’s not like you can just plant a Geoffrey Canada down in Dayton and other urban communities and wait for grassroots reform to grow.
As Canada described how HCZ’s work unfolded, it was a good reminder of the role that local leadership and home-grown reform plays in K-12 transformation: “No one from the federal or state or whatever level of government was going to come in and fix it for us. We didn’t ask permission; we just did it.” The 21 Promise Neighborhoods across the US (winning federal grants to try to create similar “zones”) will illustrate the extent to which the concept can be replicated.
Until then, Canada’s words both inspire and cause slight anxiety: “Hope is as infectious as despair.” That’s true, but only comforting to a small degree because it’s far easier to work in the realm of policies, legislative language, regulations, and rules than it is to deal with the more enigmatic aspects of the human spirit and translate these qualities into tangible improvements for kids. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, human capital matters enormously in strengthening communities – both drawing in talented individuals and keeping them. Even if Ohio can make great progress in changing policies/legislation, issues of human capital loom large and are integral to the state’s long-term ability to help kids most in need. Kudos to Canada for the reminder.
This working paper from the Center on Reinventing Public Education – as part of its National Charter School Research Project – examines the impact of charter school authorizers on student achievement. The paper focuses on Ohio, a state that allows a wide variety of entities – public school districts, educational service centers, 13 state universities and 501(c)(3) organizations that meet Ohio Department of Education (ODE) criteria – to authorize (aka, sponsor) charter schools.
Researchers collected longitudinally linked student-level data that spanned from 2004-05 through 2007-08 from ODE. The data were for elementary and middle grades only, and virtual/online charter schools (aka e-schools) were excluded from the study. The report found that when it comes to student achievement in both reading and math, charter schools that were originally authorized by nonprofits, on average, produced the least gains in student achievement, while district-authorized charters had the largest gains (though statistically insignificant). ESC-authorized and state-authorized charters were “statistically indistinguishable” from other charters in both subjects.
The authors note that these findings may reflect Ohio’s ongoing struggle with how to grow and regulate the charter sector, with choice proponents often wishing to expand school choice for the sake of choice (with success defined by the diversity and number of options), and others (including Fordham) cautioning that choice must come with quality controls and a laser focus on performance. The report concludes – and we agree – that the structure of the authorizing entity is not the issue. Regardless of entity type, the key issue is whether the entity is effective at the work of charter school authorizing itself.
“Charter School Authorizers and Student
Achievement”
Center on Reinventing Public
Education
Ron Zimmer, Brian Gill, Kaitlin
Obenauf
December 2010
Add this credible and quantitative research to the growing list of reports finding seniority-based layoffs to be detrimental both to student learning and to the bottom line. From the CEDR, the report analyzes data on over 2,000 Washington state teachers who received reduction-in-force (RIF) notices during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years—primarily on a first hired, last fired model. It then compared these seniority-based layoffs to a number of proposed performance-based layoff models—each using a different metric for value-added. In a computer simulation, the seniority-based model caused student learning to lag by two to four months compared to a performance-based model, and under it African American students were 50 percent more likely to have their teachers laid off than were white students (compared to 20 percent more likely in the performance-based scenario). Further, the study found that performance-based layoffs would save up to 10 percent of the state’s teacher workforce, as fewer tenured, higher-paid teachers would need to be pink-slipped to meet budget quotas. Many states, including Fordham’s home state of Ohio, have laws that require all teacher layoffs to be based on seniority alone—laws that, in light of this study’s findings, legislators would do well to cut.
“Assessing
the Determinants and Implications of Teacher Layoffs”
Center for Education Data and Research
Dan Goldhaber and Roddy Theobald
December 2010
In the fall of 2009, the Gates Foundation commenced an epic task: the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project. Through thousands of hours of videotaped and live classroom observations, student and teacher surveys, and information on student achievement gains, foundation analysts labored to uncover the best indicators of teacher effectiveness, the goal being to craft systemic and reliable evaluation processes and feedback mechanisms for the future. The preliminary findings of this massive initiative are now available. And if they’re a sign what’s to come, teacher evaluations will be in for a major makeover. This preliminary report analyzes two of the project’s five measures of teacher effectiveness—student scores (on both state and external tests) and student survey responses. There were four take-aways: First, a teacher’s past success in producing student gains is highly predictive of that teacher’s ability to do so again. Second, teachers who, according to their students, “teach to the test” do not produce the highest value-added scores for said students; rather, instructors who help their students understand math concepts and reading comprehension yield the highest scores. Third, student perceptions of their teachers are remarkably telling and remain stable across groups of students and across classes taught by the same teacher. Most reflective of teacher effectiveness is students’ perceptions of whether their teacher controls the classroom and challenges them with rigorous work. The analysts end by noting that a combination of these methods provides teachers a more accurate, detailed, and targeted evaluation. These findings are just the beginning of MET. Check back in late spring for the final report—including analyses of classroom observations.
“Learning
about Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching
Project”
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
December 2010
