The Education Gadfly Weekly

As the days grew shorter and 2015 drew to a close, my colleagues gave you a recap of the big education stories that impacted the Buckeye State last year. With the new year upon us, it’s time to turn our gaze forward, polish the trusty crystal ball, and make some predictions about what will happen in the next twelve months.

But first, a few disclaimers. While I may possess some superhuman powers, it remains to be seen whether the power of prognostication is one of them. Check back in December to either gloat or pay homage to my soothsaying. Moreover, these are predictions, not necessarily what I want to happen. So keep calm and keep reading.

1. 2016 Elections mean not much of substance will actually happen

Election years always tend to tamp down the amount of legislation that winds its way through the General Assembly. This year, that tendency should be even more pronounced as Ohio’s own John Kasich battles for a spot on the Republican presidential ticket. This means no mid-biennium review bill and precious little action on education policy during 2016. It will likely be the quietest year since Kasich became governor. In fact, the only issue that will be addressed in law before the lame duck session—when, of course, all bets are off—is truancy and attendance. Ignored for too long, measures to help keep more Ohio kids in school will likely gain strong bipartisan support.

2. Ohio will hire a (safe) new state superintendent

Given the recent retirement of Dr. Richard Ross, predicting that Ohio will hire a new state superintendent is a gimme. So let’s make this more interesting: The State Board of Education, against conventional wisdom, will follow a safe course and choose a superintendent who doesn’t make waves. Don’t look for a national reformer with a history of shaking things up (sorry, Tony Bennett and Kevin Huffman). Instead, trying to put some of the bitter discourse of the last year behind it, the board will opt for a veteran Ohio school district leader.

3. Ohio will jump through the U.S. Department of Education’s hoops and retain the $71 million CSP grant

While some have celebrated Ohio’s big charter school grant award—well, mostly just us at Fordham—the overall response has been decidedly negative. So much so that the Department of Education has asked for additional information and assurances that Ohio can effectively administer the grant. Whether it’s because of Ohio’s role as a presidential bellwether state or the recognition by the feds that Ohio needs funding incentives to strengthen its beleaguered charter sector, the Buckeye State (after some more finger pointing) will be given the go-ahead to administer the CSP grant.

4. Ohio will continue its affair with the proficiency illusion

Ohio, like most states, has long given a little wink and nod to parents and the public when it reported state assessment results and over-identified the number of students performing at grade level—the proficiency illusion. Offered a chance to right the ship with the 2014–15 PARCC assessments, Ohio unfortunately chose to set a lower bar for proficiency than the national consortium recommended. With history as its guide and no real desire to administer tough love, expect Ohio to follow a similar course this year when adopting cut scores for its own newly designed assessment. This way, everyone wins. (Well, except for those families who believe their kids are on track for life after high school—when they will actually require remediation before taking college classes, or fail to pass the military entrance examination.)

5. GOP legislators will be forced to decide how important accountability really is

It’s a new era for education policy in America. Gone are the days when state legislators could simply shrug their shoulders when discussing school accountability and say, “The feds made me do it.” School grades, teacher evaluations, learning standards, testing opt-outs, and a slew of other issues will now (or in 2017 at the latest) need to be addressed by Ohio legislators. Will they have the strength to stick to their convictions and professed belief in school accountability? It will test the mettle of legislators—especially Republicans, who have championed these policies. At the end of the day, the bulk of Ohio’s system will remain in place, mostly due to leadership provided by the governor and House and Senate leaders.

6. The school funding debate will rage on

While it’s already been asserted that not much policy change will occur, that doesn’t mean we’ll be without things to talk about. Front and center in the education debate this year will be continued skirmishes over school funding. The ever-raging battle between districts and charters will loom large as districts continue to make the case that Ohio’s inartful funding method directly hurts them. Charters will strike back by pointing to the wildly inequitable funding amounts their students receive. The dissension won’t stop there as more and more districts—especially fast-growing ones—turn to the media to point out the absurdity wrought by funding “caps” that directly circumvent the state’s own funding formula.

7. Ohio will finally rate its charter school sponsors

It’s been a long time coming, but 2016 will see the Ohio Department of Education finally complete its rating of all charter school sponsors. The results will not come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. No sponsors will receive the top rating of exemplary—in part because it’s an extremely high bar, but also because of the recent decision to weigh overall academic achievement and growth about equally when calculating the academic rating of each sponsor. That won’t be the biggest news, though. A plurality of sponsors will be rated as effective, and one-fourth of the state’s sponsors (mostly school districts) will demur from the more rigorous review process and simply stop sponsoring charter schools.

8. Online charter schools will occupy center stage in the charter school debate

Ohio’s online charter schools took center stage in much of the charter debate in 2015, and you shouldn’t expect that to change in 2016. The size of a couple of online schools alone means that they have a disproportionate impact on the overall success of the charter sector and on their sponsors’ grades. The issue is complicated further by recent comments from the head of the leading national charter school advocacy group as to whether online charters should be treated as a different type of school entirely.

9. Ohio’s new learning standards will change, but only slightly

The Common Core debate in Ohio has been ebbing and flowing for the last couple of years. It’s been quiet lately, though, and you can expect that trend to continue. The standards review process currently taking place should produce some refinements: probably little things like adding cursive and clarifying that informational reading isn’t about reading product warranties. That’s a good thing as Ohio makes the standards her own and makes sure that they are working for teachers around the state.

10. Gadfly readers will make their feelings known

In December 2016, loyal Ohio Gadfly readers let their silence speak volumes when asked whether they’d like a second annual edition of “Amateur Punditry.” A few brave souls even beg not to be subjected to another round of “so-called predictions.” Ouch…

***

There you go—plenty of education predictions to wrap your head around in 2016. I’m not sure about their overall accuracy, but I must admit to feeling pretty good about the last one. Whatever happens in 2016, keep following the Ohio Gadfly—and tell your friends to subscribe too—as your go-to source for education policy analysis and commentary in the Buckeye State.

Happy New Year!

Truancy has long been a problem in schools across the nation. Because of its myriad causes, the economic and educational cost, and unhelpfully harsh policies, it continues to be a broad and complicated problem. In Ohio, school officials have been trying to support chronically absent students for years. Unfortunately, despite good intentions and several attempts, the state’s attendance issues still haven’t been resolved—and much of that can be attributed to Ohio’s problematic legal provisions regarding truancy. Persistent difficulties in data collection and reporting keep the true size and nature of the problem unknowable, and an outdated punitive mentality makes designing productive solutions close to impossible.

For a closer look at the issue, consider the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD). During the 2013–14 school year, Cleveland’s 89.1 percent attendance rate was the lowest of all Big 8 urban districts. That rate has been flat for quite a few years.[1] An 89 percent might not seem so bad—it would indicate a B grade on a test. But attendance percentages are different than grades; in a district the size of Cleveland, an 89 percent attendance rate means that thousands of kids are missing school each day. CEO Eric Gordon told the Plain Dealer that over the past three years, the district has averaged 57 percent of kids missing ten days or more in a year. That’s a worrisome number: The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) currently defines a habitually truant student as one who misses twelve or more school days without legitimate excuse in one year, and a chronically truant student as one who misses fifteen or more school days without legitimate excuse in a single year. To their credit, Cleveland education officials are working hard to create change.

Recognizing the need to tackle the punitive roots of and the lack of data on truancy, lawmakers last month introduced House Bill 410. The bill aims to decrease the number of absent students who get pushed into the criminal justice system by instituting interventions in Ohio schools. Let’s take a look at the bill’s biggest changes.

Keeping kids in school

Current law requires districts to adopt a policy of zero tolerance for violent, disruptive, or inappropriate behavior, including excessive truancy. If passed, HB 410 would prohibit districts from including truancy in their zero tolerance policies. Bill language states: “On and after July 1, 2016, no school district or school shall suspend or expel a student from school or otherwise prohibit a student from attending school solely on the basis of the student's absences from school without legitimate excuse.” This is a pretty commonsensical approach. If a student is absent from school too much—and probably failing classes as a result—the proper solution is hardly to force them to miss even more school. State Senator Peggy Lehner rightly points out that suspending or expelling truant students is “ridiculous.” Rather than a punitive system that harms kids, it’s time for Ohio to start helping them.

Support instead of punish

Under current law, a child can be referred to juvenile court for being habitually truant. He can also end up categorized as “unruly,” which is a stepping stone toward being labeled a juvenile delinquent. In short, thousands of Ohio students have ended up in court for missing school, regardless of the reason for their absence and whether or not their school tried to intervene beforehand. Rather than punish students for truancy, HB 410 seeks to craft a more nuanced approach. It starts by requiring school districts to adopt a new or amended policy on student absence no later than ninety days after the bill’s effective date. These policies must include a truancy intervention plan for any student who is excessively absent.

Intervention plans must meet a few guidelines. First, when a student reaches a certain absence point (thirty-eight hours in one month or sixty-five hours in one school year), the district must notify his parent or guardian within seven days. At this point, the district can enact any interventions included in its new policy. These interventions can include counseling for the student, or parental involvement and truancy prevention mediation programs. Second, if the student reaches the truancy threshold,[2] the district superintendent or school principal must assign him to an absence intervention team. This team comprises a school or district administrator, a teacher, and the student’s parent or guardian, but it can also include others. Within thirty days of the assignment, the team must develop an intervention plan tailored particularly to the student, with the aim of getting him back to—and keeping him in—school. To be clear, this doesn’t mean that truancy cases never go to court—just that schools are required to take thorough action and provide multiple opportunities to fix attendance problems before referring anyone to court.    

Keeping better records

Beginning in the 2014–15 school year, the Ohio Department of Education shifted instruction requirements from a minimum number of days to a minimum number of hours. This shift wasn’t reflected in the ORC’s truancy definitions, which continued to track truancy by days instead of hours. HB 410 alters these definitions to incorporate the state’s new minimum requirements. This should make it easier for the state to keep track of how many students are missing out on minimum requirements, and also fix a glaring inconsistency in law.

In addition, the bill requires that each district report to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) when a parent/guardian has been notified that their student has almost reached the truancy threshold; when a student actually reaches the truancy threshold; when a student has been judged to be “unruly” and violates the court’s orders regarding that judgment; and when an absence intervention plan has been implemented. This is a pretty big deal, considering the state currently has no way to track truancy numbers or attempts at intervention—even after the Columbus data-scrubbing scandal called attendance numbers into question. In addition, juvenile courts are required to prepare an annual report that includes, among other things, the number of children placed in diversion programs due to truancy, the number who successfully complete diversion programs, and the number who fail to complete programs and are consequently labeled “unruly.” This is another example of more transparency and an increased effort not to count kids out. 

***

Truancy is a complex issue, made more complicated by the uniqueness of each student’s situation and the diverse approaches that districts across the state currently adopt. HB 410 should cut down on the confusion, particularly since it institutes more effective record keeping. Tackling truancy from an intervention standpoint rather than a punitive one should also aid families and schools in getting students back on track. That being said, the lion’s share of the work in HB 410 will fall on local districts—and in the case of implementation, the devil will be in the details. While HB 410 is a giant step in the right direction, policymakers would be wise to purposefully seek input from school administrators and educators on how to ensure that the new law empowers, rather than hampers, school-level efforts to intervene in truancy matters.

As Ohio goes, so goes the nation—at least when it comes to the 2016 Quality Counts ranking. Called to Account is the twentieth edition of Education Week’s annual ranking of states based on a bevy of (somewhat random) indicators. Each year’s rankings are accompanied by a thematic commentary on American education—effectively a backdrop of national trends, events, or priorities against which to view state data. This year’s theme is accountability, and researchers examined trends in achievement and poverty-based gaps according to NAEP.

The latest scorecard for the Buckeye State is nearly impossible to differentiate from the national one. Ohio’s overall letter grade (C) and individual grades on the report’s three main indicators—the Chance-for-Success Index (C-plus), K–12 Achievement Index (C-minus), and school finance analysis (C)—match national grades right down to the pluses and minuses.

Ohio falls in the middle of the pack nationally on all counts, though not all grades are especially insightful. For instance, a state earns a perfect score on the “spending index” if all of its districts spend above the U.S. average, yet we know that more spending does not always translate to better outcomes. Still, it’s worth noting Ohio’s rankings relative to peers and areas of possible deficiency.

• Ohio’s ranking and grades have dropped. Its overall standing among peer states fell to twenty-third (from eighteenth last year); “chances for success” and school finance grades also fell slightly. Bear in mind that the grades are relative, so a decline in scores may occur merely because others improve. However, given Ohio’s standing at number five in 2010, its current rank represents quite a precipitous drop over time.
• Persistent and growing poverty gaps. Perhaps the most concerning slice of data from the whole report is Ohio’s poverty gap—how non-poor kids score on the NAEP compared to poor kids—which is now approaching thirty points.
• Lower scores on pre- and post-K–12 metrics. While Ohio scores above the national average on NAEP proficiency and high school graduation rates—and could be considered ahead of the K–12 curve in many ways—it falls several percentage points below on preschool and kindergarten enrollment. Similarly, Ohio lags on the “adult outcomes” measures, specifically for the number of adults with a two- or four-year degree and those with incomes at or above the national median.
• Low scores on Advanced Placement. More than any K–12 achievement metric, Ohio’s percentage of students scoring a 3 or higher on AP exams falls below national norms.

Not all of Quality Counts’s indices are equally important, and Ohio’s overall average grade conceals what’s happening—for better or for worse—among individual categories. What stands out from this year’s rankings is that Ohio must make more concerted efforts to address serious poverty gaps. Moreover, policy makers should consider ways to enhance the entire spectrum of a person’s educational experience from “cradle to career,” not just K–12.

Source: “Quality Counts 2016: Called to Account: New Directions in School Accountability,” Education Week (January 2016)

Ohio has exemplary charter schools – beacons of quality that are helping students reach their full potential. Who are these high flyers and what can we learn from them? How can Ohio replicate, expand, and support great charters in every part of the state? Fordham partnered with Steve Farkas and Ann Duffett of the FDR Group to survey the leaders of these exemplary schools to capture their thoughts on charter policy, hear what makes their schools tick, and learn what we can do to make sure that good schools flourish and expand.

Quality in Adversity: Lessons from Ohio’s best charter schools will be released on Wednesday, January 27, 2016, in conjunction with this event. A fitting way to celebrate National School Choice Week!

PRESENTER

Ann Duffett, Ph.D., the FDR Group

PANELISTS

Andrew Boy, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, United Schools Network

Hannah D. Powell, Executive Director, KIPP Columbus

David Taylor, Chief Academic Officer, Dayton Early College Academy

MODERATOR

Steve Farkas, the FDR Group

DATE/TIME

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Coffee and pastries will be available

Program begins at 8:30 am

Program concludes at 9:45 am

LOCATION:

Chase Tower

100 East Broad Street - Sixth Floor Conference Room B

Columbus, OH 43215

Space is limited. Register today by clicking here.

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 594,000 children live in poverty throughout the state of Ohio. Assuming a family of four, these Buckeye youngsters come from households with an annual income of less than $25,000—truly disadvantaged families. It’s no secret that children such as these are behind the proverbial eight-ball in life; as recent research demonstrates, it’s a longshot that kids who grow up poor will climb into the upper-middle class as adults—and Ohio’s low-income children face some of the longest odds nationally.

It has long been recognized that the best antidote to this vicious cycle of intergenerational poverty is an extraordinary education. Still, even today, tens of thousands of low-income Buckeye students are way off track in school—in an academic Siberia—and almost certainly not on the path to adult success. In fact, according to early results from last year’s PARCC tests, roughly 15 percent of students from poor urban areas are meeting career- and college-ready benchmarks, while the percentages reach 50 and 60 percent in the suburbs.

What can we do? One possible avenue for advancement is to create public finance policies that devote more dollars to the education of low-income students. In technical speak, this refers to the concept of “vertical equity”—pupils with unequal needs ought to receive different amounts of aid—and is related to the idea of weighted student funding. Pragmatically speaking, this suggests that a low-income student might receive, say, $15,000 per year in public aid for her education, while a child from a wealthy family would receive a lesser amount. The logic is fairly simple: A low-income family has virtually no disposable income to privately finance K–12 education, while an affluent family has more and is thus in less need of governmental aid.

This approach could create more equitable learning opportunities for low-income children. It holds the potential for allowing their schools to compete for top-notch teacher talent, creating deeper and richer educational experiences, complete with science labs and rigorous coursework, and providing extracurricular activities such as band or orchestra, sports, theatre and the like. In other words, a funding system that prioritized public spending on low-income children could allow them to access the educational goods and services that upper-middle class families more or less take for granted. If (and it is a huge “if”) schools serving low-income students spend these dollars effectively, one would expect outcomes for low-income kids to improve.

So does Ohio’s school funding system actually dedicate a greater amount of taxpayer funding to those with the greatest economic need? The answer is both yes and no—and the whole question is surprisingly complicated.

Let’s start by looking at the distribution of state revenue to each of Ohio’s 609 districts. Chart 1 illustrates that the state generally devotes larger amounts of funding to districts with higher percentages of low-income pupils. The correlation between the variables is fairly strong (r = 0.67; 1.0 indicates a one-to-one relationship, and 0.0 indicates no relationship). In isolation, then, state revenue is allocated in a fairly progressive manner and indeed largely meets the goal of delivering more public aid to districts that educate higher-need pupils.

Chart 1: Percent economically disadvantaged students versus state revenue per student, Ohio districts, 2013–14.

[[{"fid":"115395","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","attributes":{"style":"height: 324px; width: 500px;","class":"media-element file-default"},"link_text":null}]]

Source (for charts 1–3): Ohio Department of Education, Cupp Reports (FY 2014) Notes: Each point on the chart represents a school district. Ohio’s “island districts” and College Corner Local, which spans across the Ohio-Indiana border, are excluded from these charts. Generally speaking, “economic disadvantage” refers to students eligible for free and reduced-priced lunch (185 percent of the federal poverty level, or roughly $45,000 for a family of four).

Bear in mind that state revenue accounts for less than half of a district’s overall revenue—about 43 percent on average. Districts also receive a significant portion of funding (42 percent) from local taxes—predominately property—while the remaining share comes from federal funding (8 percent) and non-tax sources (7 percent).[1] The second chart displays the link between districts’ local revenue and their fraction of disadvantaged students. As you can see, an inverse relationship emerges: Districts with higher numbers of disadvantaged students receive less local funding (r = - 0.47).

Chart 2: Percent economically disadvantaged students versus local revenue per student, Ohio districts, 2013–14.

[[{"fid":"115396","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","attributes":{"style":"height: 346px; width: 500px;","class":"media-element file-default"},"link_text":null}]]

As has long been recognized, widely varying property values drive the negative relationship that we observe in Chart 2. For example, one mill levied on the taxable value of real estate (i.e., a 0.10 percent tax rate) yields somewhere between $200 and $500 per student in wealthy suburban districts; meanwhile, in the most property-poor districts, one mill raises less than $100 per student. For example, Dayton and Youngstown school districts raise $68 and $51 per pupil, respectively, on one mill. Rural districts also raise relatively little when levying property taxes: Those defined as rural by the state generate, on average, $120 per student on 1 mill.

In addition to varying tax bases, another factor behind the local revenue disparity is the property tax rates themselves. Wealthier districts tend to have somewhat higher tax rates, as voters in those districts have chosen to tax themselves at rates above and beyond the minimum effective property-tax rate required by the state.[2] This means that not only do a fair number of high wealth districts have a leg up in terms of tax base, but generate even more local revenue than usual through a higher tax rate.

The net effect is that local tax revenue—which is held exclusively by the taxing district, not reallocated to others depending on their need—washes out the positive relationship between state funding and student poverty displayed in Chart 1. When all sources of taxpayer revenue are combined (state, local, and federal), the correlation between the two variables, though still slightly positive, falls closer to zero (r = 0.20; Chart 3). This indicates that the way Ohio funds public education only very modestly drives more overall taxpayer aid to fund the education of needier children.

Chart 3: Percent economically disadvantaged students versus total revenue (state, local, federal sources) per student, Ohio districts, 2013–14.

[[{"fid":"115397","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","attributes":{"style":"height: 323px; width: 500px;","class":"media-element file-default"},"link_text":null}]]

In an ideal world, one might wish that the overall funding system looked more like Chart 1. But it doesn’t. This, of course, brings us to a key tension point in school funding policy: Local control versus equitable funding. Arguably, one crucial dimension of local control is the authority that school districts—local government entities—have to independently levy taxes and then spend those dollars as they see fit.[3] Some have argued (not unreasonably) that local control, as it pertains to districts’ tax and spending authority, ensures that citizens have “skin in the game”—a stake in the well-being of their communities’ public schools. Any attempt to minimize (or even abandon) the use of the local property tax to fund public education would run counter to the deeply held principle of local control.

At the same time, without addressing local districts’ taxing authority in some way, Ohio may not get to an equitable/weighted funding approach that actually puts more overall taxpayer dollars into the backpacks of children with the greatest economic need. This raises a tough question for those who want to see greater equity in education but also hold dearly to the principle of local control. How do you reconcile that principle—at least the tax and spending bit of it—with equality in educational opportunity (if not closer parity in academic, and even adult, outcomes)? Can we stand for both at the same time, or is the tension intractable?

The comments are open.

In early December, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) released its 2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, which examines the laws and regulations governing state teacher policy. NCTQ evaluated states in five policy areas, each of which contained sub-goals such as delivering well-prepared teachers, expanding the teaching pool, and identifying effective teachers. States were evaluated on each dimension and given a grade for each policy area. The five policy area grades were then rolled into one state grade.

In terms of overall grades, Ohio did fairly well, earning a B-minus. (The top-performing state was Florida with a B+, while the lowest performer was Montana with an F.) Ohio received the same grade in 2013, but earlier overall grades (a C-plus in 2011 and a D-plus in 2009) were far less impressive, and the results point to general improvement. The Buckeye State earned its highest area grade, a solid B, in expanding the teacher pool through efforts to increase teaching opportunities with flexible and rigorous pathways. But the state earned its lowest grade (a C-minus) for delivering well-prepared teachers—mostly due to its failure to require prospective elementary, secondary science, secondary social studies, and special education teachers to pass rigorous content tests in all the subjects they will teach. The Buckeye State also suffered for its lack of requirements for admission into teacher preparation programs. Here’s a look at Ohio’s grades in each of the five policy areas:

• Delivering well-prepared teachers: C-minus
• Expanding the teacher pool: B
• Identifying effective teachers: C-plus
• Retaining effective teachers: B-minus
• Exiting Ineffective teachers: B-minus

NCTQ rounds out their report with a list of critical areas where states need to improve their teacher policies. For Ohio, these areas include improving teacher preparation, giving districts flexibility to determine their own pay structures and scales, and ensuring that new teachers are observed and receive feedback early in the school year. Despite this room for improvement, however, Ohio continues to move forward on the right path.

SOURCE: “2015 State Teacher Policy Yearbook,” The National Council on Teacher Quality (December 2015).