The Education Gadfly Weekly

The Fordham Ohio staff thanks Terry Ryan for his time, energy, and commitment to serving the state of Ohio and its students for twelve years. In case you missed it, the articles linked below contain Terry’s parting thoughts as he leaves the Buckeye State for Idaho, the Gem State (not the “Potato State” as Gadfly suspected). They are food for thought as we at Fordham and other school reformers continue the good work that Terry has started.

Ohio Gadfly Daily: “12 years; 12 lessons”

Dayton Daily News: “Roundtable Discussion: How Can We Make Our Schools More Effective?”

* * *

Terry’s contact information:

Idaho Charter School Network

815 W. Washington Street
Lower Level Suite
Boise, ID 83702

Email: [email protected]

Office: 208-906-1420

Many states have found a solution for how to better serve their inner-city students through portfolio districts, urban districts that prescribe to a continuous improvement model based on seven key components. Ohio is no exception to that as Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus all participate in the portfolio district network. In order to become a portfolio district, central offices must learn to give the decision making authority to school leaders.  In transitioning, however, district officials are left wondering how much power to give and who to give it to. Simply giving all schools full autonomy is a bad idea. In a short piece by Paul Hill, creator of the portfolio school district, management strategy provides advice to central offices by determining what authority schools should receive and which ones should be chosen.  Hill delineates between two types of autonomy—basic and advanced. If a school is selected to be autonomous, basic autonomies are those that are “non-negotiables.” The list of basic autonomies include control of spending, control of hiring, control of student grouping, and control of funds for professional development. Advanced autonomies are those that, according to Hill, “ensure that the school is fully in charge of itself and can be held accountable for student learning.” Among the advanced autonomies are the control of teacher pay, control of firing, and freedom to make purchases for academic support services. In developing the first pilot group for school autonomy, Hill recommends that central office staff consider schools that, more than anything, are willing to take on new freedoms. While many would assume giving high performing schools autonomy first, Hill argues that they have thrived in the current system, and if unwilling to take on the freedom, could flounder in the new role. As Ohio’s urban districts venture into the portfolio arena, it is of paramount importance to take Hill’s advice to heart.

Paul Hill, Defining and Organizing for School Autonomy (Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education, July 2013)               

New York made education headlines last week, as its public schools reported substantially lower test scores than in previous years. The cause of the drop? This was the first year that New York administered exams aligned to the Common Core—though these were not the “official” Common Core-aligned exams (PARCC or Smarter Balanced assessments). According to Education Week, proficiency rates for English language arts sunk by 24 percentage points, and, for math, proficiency declined by a staggering 34 percentage points. New York’s Commissioner of Education, John King, attempting to reassure the public, remarked that “the changes in scores do not mean that schools have taught less or that students have learned less.”

In contrast to New York—and earlier, Kentucky—the Buckeye State has not taken the interim step of ratcheting up the rigor of its assessments to prepare its students, educators, and public for the exams aligned to the Common Core. (Ohio is a member of the PARCC consortium of states, which is one of the two organizations that are developing Common Core exams.) And, if the results from New York and Kentucky are a predictor, Ohio should brace itself for a shock, come 2014-15, when the PARCC exams arrive. Similar to the Empire and Bluegrass states, Ohioans should expect sizeable drops in proficiency rates in their local schools and districts, as we forecast in a report last fall.

Ohio’s implementation of the Common Core in math and English raise the academic expectations for all Ohio students, whether inner-city, rural, small town, or suburban. However, Ohioans will experience pain related to switching to these new, higher standards—as New Yorkers are currently experiencing. One such shock will be the fall in test scores and proficiency rates. But, as Commissioner King rightly observes, the proficiency rate drop doesn’t mean that youngsters have become less smart overnight. Rather, the Common Core suddenly raises the academic expectations for many of our students, after years of mediocre standards. Due to this change, Ohioans should expect—and embrace—a more honest view of how many students actually “pass a test.”

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute recently announced two new vice presidents to lead its education-reform efforts in Ohio. Chad Aldis will join the Fordham Institute as vice president for Ohio policy and advocacy and Kathryn Mullen-Upton has been promoted to vice president for sponsorship and Dayton initiatives. Terry Ryan, Fordham’s current vice president for Ohio programs and policy, will be leaving Fordham to serve as the President of the Idaho Charter School Network.

Aldis, a longtime advocate for Ohio education reform, most recently served as a program officer in the Systemic K-12 Education Reform Focus Area for the Walton Family Foundation. Prior to joining Walton, he served as the executive director of School Choice Ohio and was the Ohio state director for StudentsFirst. Aldis will join Fordham in October and lead school-reform initiatives throughout Ohio.

Mullen-Upton has been Fordham’s director of sponsorship since 2005, where she is responsible for the management and oversight of Fordham’s charter-school-authorizing operations. Effective immediately, Mullen-Upton has been promoted to vice president for sponsorship and Dayton initiatives, where she will expand Fordham’s charter sponsorship operations and advance education-reform efforts in Fordham’s home town.

“Terry Ryan is unique and therefore cannot be ‘replaced,’” said Fordham President Chester E. Finn, Jr. “Ohio and Fordham—and the education-reform cause more broadly—have benefited hugely from his labors these past dozen years. We will miss him and wish him the very best in Idaho.”

“Terry can, however, be ‘succeeded,’ and in Chad Aldis and Kathryn Mullen-Upton, we have been fortunate to find the best imaginable successors and Ohio-based ed-reform champions and leaders for Fordham. Chad brings outstanding and diverse experience to these challenges, deep familiarity with the Buckeye state, with school choice, and with other key issues. As our new vice president for Ohio policy and advocacy, he will lead Fordham's ongoing effort to improve the education of children who need it most in our home state. Kathryn, meanwhile, has turned our sponsorship operation into one of the very best in the country. We are enthusiastic for her to play a new leadership role in promoting reform in the Gem City."

The Fordham Ohio staff thanks Terry Ryan for his time, energy, and commitment to serving the state of Ohio and its students for twelve years. In case you missed it, the articles linked below contain Terry’s parting thoughts as he leaves the Buckeye State for Idaho, the Gem State (not the “Potato State” as Gadfly suspected). They are food for thought as we at Fordham and other school reformers continue the good work that Terry has started.

Ohio Gadfly Daily: “12 years; 12 lessons”

Dayton Daily News: “Roundtable Discussion: How Can We Make Our Schools More Effective?”

* * *

Terry’s contact information:

Idaho Charter School Network

815 W. Washington Street
Lower Level Suite
Boise, ID 83702

Email: [email protected]

Office: 208-906-1420

Many states have found a solution for how to better serve their inner-city students through portfolio districts, urban districts that prescribe to a continuous improvement model based on seven key components. Ohio is no exception to that as Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus all participate in the portfolio district network. In order to become a portfolio district, central offices must learn to give the decision making authority to school leaders.  In transitioning, however, district officials are left wondering how much power to give and who to give it to. Simply giving all schools full autonomy is a bad idea. In a short piece by Paul Hill, creator of the portfolio school district, management strategy provides advice to central offices by determining what authority schools should receive and which ones should be chosen.  Hill delineates between two types of autonomy—basic and advanced. If a school is selected to be autonomous, basic autonomies are those that are “non-negotiables.” The list of basic autonomies include control of spending, control of hiring, control of student grouping, and control of funds for professional development. Advanced autonomies are those that, according to Hill, “ensure that the school is fully in charge of itself and can be held accountable for student learning.” Among the advanced autonomies are the control of teacher pay, control of firing, and freedom to make purchases for academic support services. In developing the first pilot group for school autonomy, Hill recommends that central office staff consider schools that, more than anything, are willing to take on new freedoms. While many would assume giving high performing schools autonomy first, Hill argues that they have thrived in the current system, and if unwilling to take on the freedom, could flounder in the new role. As Ohio’s urban districts venture into the portfolio arena, it is of paramount importance to take Hill’s advice to heart.

Paul Hill, Defining and Organizing for School Autonomy (Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education, July 2013)