The Education Gadfly Weekly

To ring in the New Year, we at the Ohio Gadfly have a tradition—two years running!—of predicting the top issues in education for the coming year. Once again, the job has fallen to yours truly to peer into the crystal ball and see what’s on the horizon in our corner of the world. Some may be more under-the-radar than the usual topics that make headlines, but are nevertheless worth taking stock of. Without further ado, here’s my top five.

5. Parent Power via Homeschooling or Private Education

Parents can make their voices heard and their preferences known in various ways within conventional school systems. But families also seem to be taking even bolder steps in their children’s education—either homeschooling them or enrolling them in non-chartered private schools, which operate under even less oversight than more traditional private schools. In Ohio, the number of homeschooled children increased from 25,565 to 28,539 between 2014-15 and 2015-16 (the most recent data available). Meanwhile, the number of non-chartered private schools is also on the rise. In 2014-15, the Ohio Department of Education listed 312 non-chartered schools; in the current school year, there are 425 such schools. It’s not clear why these upticks have occurred, but news outlets are taking note of this trend, including a recent look at Columbus-area families who formed an “educational cooperative” and coverage indicating that African American parents are embracing homeschooling. Of course, not all parents will find such off-the-grid options as attractive or feasible. But as Millennials become parents themselves (gasp!), we may start to see more families taking greater control of their kids’ education beyond the well-worn choice pathways, including public charter schools, private-school scholarships, interdistrict open-enrollment, and more.

4. Remaking School Report Cards

For Ohio parents and taxpayers, annual school report cards are an important check on the academic outcomes of students in their communities. But shortly after the release of the 2016-17 report cards, several lawmakers suggested that it might be time to reconsider how ratings are assigned to districts and schools. In December, a State Board of Education member put forth a resolution to create committees that would explore ways to improve report cards. These are promising signs that, in the coming year, Buckeye policymakers will address several key trouble spots in Ohio’s school rating system. As this debate moves forward, we at Fordham suggest a focus on achieving two goals: 1) simplifying the report card so that Ohioans can gain a clearer understanding of school and district performance; and 2) creating a better balance between the state’s achievement-based metrics and growth measures. If Ohio policy leaders make the right course corrections, a simpler, fairer report card should begin to emerge.

3.  The Next Governor of Ohio

The November elections will bring the Buckeye State a new governor as John Kasich leaves office due to term limits. During his tenure, Governor Kasich has led several praiseworthy school reforms, including policies that place an emphasis on early literacy and strengthen oversight in the charter sector. What role will education play in the campaigns? Expect the Democratic candidate to advocate for increased spending on K-12 public schools and the GOP nominee to press for deregulation and greater local control. Interesting also will be the way school choice and testing/school accountability policies are debated during this election cycle. Regardless who wins, we know that he or she will be in a position to shape education policies entering the 2019 state budget debate. We certainly have ideas on what the signature issues should be—e.g., reforms such as direct funding for choice programs and unwinding funding caps and guarantees should be atop any governor’s list. Stay tuned in the coming year for more commentary on what we think the next governor should tackle upon entering office.

2. High School Graduation Requirements

Last spring, policymakers backtracked on the state’s updated graduation requirements by creating various options that the class of 2018 could meet in order to receive a diploma. Given the debate at the recent State Board of Education meetings, it appears that at least some policymakers are ready to extend similar alternatives to the class of 2019 and beyond. Unfortunately, these options include softball criteria such as attending school regularly, accruing a modest number of volunteer or intern hours, or completing an undefined capstone project. Over the past year, we at Fordham (and a few others) have urged state leaders to maintain a high bar, though also suggesting possible tweaks that wouldn’t obliterate standards. Perhaps the only thing stopping policymakers from extending these options to future classes is educators who take a stand against carelessly promoting students. Some already are: In a recent NPR article, several teachers shared their disgust at this practice, with one commenting, “this culture of passing [ill-prepared students] is endemic.”

1. Rebirth of a Liberal Arts Education

Technology and career-oriented training seems to be fashionable in education circles these days. In many regards, this is a positive trend: An education well-grounded in STEM and/or technical fields is critical for young people who will compete for the jobs of the future. And technological advancements can unlock personalized learning opportunities for students. But has the pendulum swung too far? Various commentators seem to think so. My last prediction—or perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part—for the new year is that K-12 schools will start moving towards a proper liberal arts education—making certain that all students have the opportunity to learn broadly (and deeply) across areas such as literature, history, civics, geography, and the fine arts starting in the early elementary grades. The humanities are where students learn to reflect and think clearly about what is right and just; true and honorable; good and beautiful—all things that are of equal importance for vibrant civic, professional, and family life as learning how to type, code, or weld. We’ve already seen several schools across the nation committing deeply to a classical liberal arts education; it would be great to see more schools like these take root in Ohio. Moreover, all schools—no matter their focus—can implement rich, knowledge-based curricula that allow students to thrive academically. With any luck, 2018 will mark the first year of a renaissance for the liberal arts in K-12 education.

* * *

These are the five education topics that might make waves in our neck of the woods. Of course, other important topics will almost certainly make headlines, including the possible resolution of the ECOT court case, debate on teacher licensing and evaluations, the continuing evolution of the charter sector, potential improvements to Ohio’s voucher programs, and more. What do you foresee? The comments are open—and yes, Happy New Year.

In the world of American politics, controversy dominated 2017. In the world of Ohio education policy, things were a bit quieter—but still eventful. As we say goodbye (or good riddance) to 2017, here’s a look at the seven biggest education stories of the year.

7) State budget

You know it’s a slow year when the budget bill barely makes the list of top education stories. On June 30, Governor Kasich signed Ohio’s biennial state budget. The bill largely maintained the current school funding formula, with nominal increases to base foundation aid to schools (including charters). Three out of four districts will see a funding increase across the biennium. With legislators concentrating on ways to fill a nearly $1 billion revenue shortfall, several important funding reform ideas failed to get the time and attention they deserved—including solutions to the decades-long problem of caps and guarantees and an emerging idea to directly fund school choice programs. As for the latter, charters continue to be supported inequitably and based on an archaic payment system that subtracts dollars from districts instead of paying charter schools directly, leaving both charters and districts frustrated.

6) School choice

During his campaign, President Trump promised a greater focus on school choice at the federal level. His nomination of Betsy DeVos for education secretary, a school choice supporter with a long history of advocating for vouchers, led many to believe that the new administration would champion not just public charter schools, but private school choice as well. Yet in the end, these efforts mostly fizzled out.

In Ohio, legislation to modernize the state’s voucher programs was introduced and has had multiple committee hearings, but hasn’t crossed the finish line either.

This summer, we released a report highlighting Ohio districts’ open enrollment policies. In Ohio, most districts allow open enrollment, but many suburban districts continue to hold out. As a way to offer more options to families and break the link between students’ zip code and school of attendance, we encouraged all districts to consider allowing non-resident students to open enroll in their schools.

As for charters, there was a lot of talk about needed revisions to the sponsorship evaluation system—but very few legislative changes. Evaluation scores came out in November and showed overall improvement. Ohio also saw a record-low number of new charter schools open this fall for a third year in a row along with twenty-two schools shut down at the end of the 2016-17 school year. 

5) Academic Distress Commissions

Academic Distress Commissions (ADCs) were also a big story, at least in Lorain and Youngstown. Although neither of the current ADCs were created in 2017, both organizations continue to implement their state mandates. In Youngstown, CEO Krish Mohip is still doing battle with the local school board. In May, he added the local teacher’s union to his list of roadblocks when they rejected his offer of a pay raise. He upped the ante even more when he proposed a shared attribution model for new teacher evaluations in November—a model that has significant problems. The Lorain commission, meanwhile, hired David Hardy in July as the new district CEO. While his turnaround plan for the district was accepted by the Lorain ADC in November, he is still dealing with a litany of non-academic issues of district culture as 2017 comes to a close.

4) Ohio submits its ESSA plan

Though it was a big story early in the year, news around Ohio’s ESSA plan lost steam as the year went on. In March, State Superintendent Paolo DeMaria announced that ODE would delay submitting its plan for the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) until September rather than take advantage of the earlier submission window that closed on April 3. DeMaria explained that the delay would “allow more time to ensure that feedback received on the draft template can be considered carefully.” Several stakeholders and groups, most notably the Ohio Federation of Teachers, praised the decision, and ODE set to work gathering more feedback. 

On September 15, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) officially submitted its ESSA plan to the U.S. Department of Education. Despite the delay and ODE’s feedback-gathering efforts, the final federal plan didn’t end up making significant changes to state policies and practices. That’s generally a good thing, given the overall strength of Ohio’s existing accountability framework.

3) Report cards

Earning a bronze medal this year (3rd place for you non-sports fans) were Ohio’s state report cards. When the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) released this year’s set, they received more backlash than usual. One state lawmaker even went so far as to call them “bogus.” In the Plain Dealer, Patrick O’Donnell summed up the kerfuffle by noting that “educators and experts don’t agree on either the purpose behind school and district report cards or their value.” Although accountability advocates have repeatedly pointed out the value of transparent, objective test data, others have argued that the report cards “profile districts on a very limited set of metrics.” (Shameless plug alert: In an effort to address concerns with the state’s report card system, we recently released a report with three key recommendations for how to streamline the system. Be sure to check it out!)

2) Graduation requirements 

This year’s runner up was the debate over Ohio’s graduation requirements. In the spring, the State Board of Education recommended that an additional graduation option be created for the class of 2018. The new pathway permits students to graduate without passing end of course (EOC) exams, attaining college-ready targets on the SAT or ACT, or meeting career and technical requirements. Instead, seniors will only need to meet two of nine alternative conditions, a list that includes such rudimentary achievements as 93 percent attendance or 120 hours of work/community service during their senior year. The legislature and the governor went along with the board and enshrined the recommendations into law.

At the time, legislators and state board members claimed that these alternatives were just a temporary fix to allay concerns students who might have difficulties passing the relatively new EOC assessments. At Fordham, we were skeptical of the “temporary” claims—and it seems we were right to be. The November state board meeting was dominated by a discussion of whether to extend the graduation options to the class of 2019 and beyond. As we head into the new year, look for this debate to continue to draw significant attention.

1) E-schools

There can only be one winner, and based on newspaper column inches alone, the heavyweight battle between the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) and ODE is the top story of 2017. The scuffle originally started thanks to a student attendance audit in which the school was unable to substantiate the attendance of thousands of its pupils. This in turn has led the state to seek repayment of millions from the school.

Not surprisingly, ECOT has fought back against the state’s actions in court. Thus far, ECOT has not been successful. Meanwhile, in August, ECOT applied to become a dropout prevention and recovery school, a group of schools that receive alternative school report cards. The move was met with immediate condemnation from many education stakeholders, and directed greater attention toward Ohio's dropout-recovery school standards. The battle between the online school and the state appears as though it will continue to rage into 2018.

Agree? Disagree? What did we forget? Tell us on Facebook or Twitter.

Here at Fordham, we try to keep our finger on the pulse of what our Ohio readers are interested in. But every year, we are pleasantly surprised when blog posts take on lives of their own.

Herewith, the most-read Ohio Gadfly blog posts of 2017, with some thoughts as to why these pieces caught your attention.

1. The student perspective

Chad Aldis’ daughter Alli had just finished her sophomore year when she wrote “My experience with AP U.S. History: The importance of rigor in bringing history to life” in June. In it, she described how much she disliked the rote memorization and dry recitation of facts that characterized her previous history classes. But all that changed when she enrolled in Advanced Placement. Engaging content, in-class debates, essays, and take-home packets allowed Alli and her classmates to dig deeper into the aspects of American history that they found interesting. It’s hard to say whether it was readers’ own experience of the dry and dusty version of history class or perhaps their own love of APUSH that drew them to this piece; but whatever it was, this was our most-read blog of the year by a very long way.

2. Wishful thinking?

In March, Jessica Poiner and Chad Aldis produced our first blockbuster post of the year—“Ohio: Give up on teacher ‘evaluations’ and focus on teacher feedback instead.” Surely the title alone reeled in some readers, figuring that Fordham had some unexpected epiphany and was joining the ranks of folks calling for an end to teacher evaluation. The authors’ admission that the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) has been unsuccessful in fulfilling its intended purposes was likely proof. Wrong! While Chad and Jessica did call for student test scores to be removed from consideration as part of teacher ratings, the recommendations they championed—part of those put forward by Ohio’s Educator Standards Board—called for rigorous observations and a clear rubric for rating teacher effectiveness along with concrete steps for improvement.

3. Show us the money!

Also in March, Fordham released a report with recommendations to improve the state’s school funding system, and we held a panel discussion on the topic in Columbus. We also produced a video that aimed to demystify the labyrinthine nature of school funding, especially when it comes to the state’s charter schools. The blog post that accompanied that video—“Ohio’s method of funding charter schools is convoluted, in need of change”—was steadily popular throughout the rest of the year. We suspect this topic will remain on readers’ minds in 2018.

4. Lunch break

Fordham has a tradition of reviewing research reports through the lens of our mission to support educational excellence for all students. It is gratifying, then, that one such short review, “School Lunch Quality and Academic Performance” by Jessica Poiner, managed to break into our list of most-read posts of the year. Maybe it was the timing of the report release as the school year was winding down; maybe it was the searchbot jackpot of “Trump/Obama/regulations/test scores/lunch”; or maybe folks were just hungry. In any case, the findings, which suggested a healthier lunch increased test scores in study participants, seemed attractive to many readers.

5. How about some b-ball at recess?

In April, Akron City Schools announced that basketball great LeBron James was lending his name—and his foundation’s considerable financial wherewithal—to support the opening of a new school in the district. The I Promise School will begin next year with a specially selected group of second and third graders and plans to expand. With its extended school day and year, a strong focus on mentorship, and a few other off-the-beaten-path features, one would be forgiven for mistaking this trailblazing project for a charter school. Jamie Davies O’Leary said just that in her blog about I Promise—“LeBron James to start a new school in Akron, but it’s not a charter”—and got lots of attention for it.

6. But seriously, folks

Jamie Davies O’Leary shared “Thoughts on educational privilege from a middle-class parent” in early October, discussing the early stages of her process of choosing a school for her child. While personal, such a choice has resonance far beyond her own decision. She will weigh all the available options against her family’s needs and perhaps her family’s choice won’t be second-guessed by others. But that is a luxury not enjoyed by many other parents in Ohio. Clearly, this unfortunate double standard resonated with Ohio Gadfly readers.

*****
There you have it; the top blogs of 2017 from the Ohio Gadfly.

Other popular posts covered Ohio’s ESSA plan, dropout recovery schools, closing dysfunctional schools, and even a couple of additional research reviews.

We produce content designed to address the most important education issues in Ohio and beyond in the most thoughtful ways possible. Thanks for reading and engaging with the issues. Make sure to keep an eye on Ohio Gadfly Daily for more analysis, commentary, reviews, and news coming in 2018. And if you haven’t subscribed to our biweekly email newsletter to have all our great content delivered straight to your Inbox, you can do so by clicking here.

Last week, Bellwether Education Partners (in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success) released its review of Ohio’s plan to comply with the federal law known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This was part of a larger project gauging the strengths and weaknesses of each state’s ESSA plan. Ohio policymakers should give careful thought to their feedback; but what should they take away from this evaluation? Let me offer three points of strong agreement with their Ohio review—and one different viewpoint. Note: I participated in this project as a peer reviewer but did not evaluate Ohio’s plan.

The areas in which the reviewers’ opinions were spot-on are as follows.

• Ohio’s accountability system is too complex. Under its summary of weaknesses, Bellwether writes: “The sheer number of measures included creates a complicated system and tends to dilute the value of many individual measures as a result.” Amen. Ohio now includes up to fifteen district or school ratings, including an overall rating, six component ratings, and eight subcomponent ratings (i.e., ratings within a larger component). This creates a noisy, cluttered report card that can lead to confusion rather than clarity on school and student performance. State legislators should heed these concerns and trim the number of ratings Ohio assigns; in a recent Fordham report, we recommend an accountability system with just six letter grades.
• Ohio’s focus on high-achieving students is laudable. Bellwether’s review notes as a strength the “multiple incentives across its system … for schools to focus on supporting students to reach advanced levels.” As evidence, the review cites Ohio’s use of a performance index—a weighted measure of proficiency that awards extra credit when students reach higher levels—and the incorporation of gifted students into the accountability system. They also mention the “innovative” Prepared for Success component that provides bonuses when students earn passing scores on AP or IB exams, or earn dual enrollment credits. Ohio’s attention to high-achievers is indeed commendable, and it’s fantastic to see this review recognizing the state’s success.
• So is Ohio’s decision to lower the n-size for subgroup accountability. It may sound wonky, but Ohio’s ESSA plan proposes an important shift in “n-size” policy—a change that reviewers cite as a strength. N-size refers to the minimum number of students who must be in a subgroup in order for their school to be held accountable for their performance, as an individual subgroup. Subgroups refer to various grouping of pupils based on similar characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity or students with disabilities). ESSA requires reporting of subgroup data following previous federal law.

The policy question turns on exactly how many students must be in a subgroup before a school is held accountable. Under its plan, Ohio would reduce this minimum n-size from a current policy of thirty to fifteen students. Naturally, this would also increase the number of schools held accountable for subgroup performance. For instance, Bellwether’s review notes that the percentage of Ohio schools accountable for students with disabilities rises from 58 currently to 86 percent under this change. Moreover, an n-size of fifteen should maintain privacy protections for individual students, a key concern when reporting data among smaller numbers of pupils.

On the balance, this review offers solid, reasoned opinions on Ohio’s accountability policies under ESSA.

Yet in my opinion, one of its conclusions was off the mark. Namely, it found Ohio’s K-3 Literacy component to be a strength. The reviewers write, “This is a novel approach other states could consider emulating.”

Although well-intentioned, the problems with the K-3 Literacy measure are significant. Most notably, this measure relies on data taken from a wide array of diagnostic exams from which schools may choose; this limits the comparability of the data (and ratings) across schools. Also troubling is the large number of schools and districts that are simply excluded, including 25 percent of low-poverty schools and 10 percent of districts. Lastly, the measure itself does not gauge the year-to-year growth of all students, including high-achievers; it simply looks at whether children move from “off track” to “on track” status from one autumn to the next.

The early elementary grades are as important as any for students’ academic growth, and policymakers could aim to ensure solid progress through the accountability system. Research also indicates that when states exclude early elementary grades, schools might respond by reassigning high-performing teachers into the tested grade levels. Creating a counterincentive would make sense (though the Third Grade Reading Guarantee accomplishes some of this). Yet any measure for early elementary grades should also be well-designed and yield meaningful results. Regrettably, K-3 Literacy doesn’t quite meet those conditions. Considering the tradeoffs, Ohio’s K-3 Literacy rating should be seen more as a liability than an asset.

***

The biggest takeaway from Bellwether’s ESSA review is this: Even smart, experienced people in education say our school rating system has become too complicated. If they’re having trouble distinguishing heads from tails, chances are that Ohio moms and dads also have difficulties. Efforts to strengthen our accountability policies didn’t end when ODE submitted its ESSA plan. In the coming year, here’s hoping that state legislators make the right moves to improve school accountability in the Buckeye State.

A new working paper from the Stanford Graduate School of Education uses roughly 300 million state math and English language arts test scores from 2009–15 for students in third through eighth grade in over 11,000 school districts across the country to take a really-big-picture look at patterns of academic achievement. The analysis allows users to compare the growth rates across U.S. school districts, a view of educational quality that is rarely seen at a national level. The findings—broken down over time, by geography, and into various subgroups—should be of interest to all education stakeholders.

The data come from NAEP and state assessments via the National Center for Education Statistics and exclude only the smallest districts for whom data on test scores and/or socioeconomic status (SES) are not available due to small sample sizes. Data on students in bricks-and-mortar charter schools are also included, rolled into the data of the district in which each school is located. Data on students in online charter schools, which enroll without regard to district boundaries, is excluded. The author of the study estimates that the data account for almost 99 percent of all public school students.

The best news comes from the temporal analysis: How a child scores at the end of eighth grade has more to do with the academic growth rate he attained between third and eighth grade than where he may have started in third grade. Third grade test scores—the starting point for each cohort—showed gaps that correlated strongly with the socioeconomic status of the community in which schools were located, indicating that education outcomes between pre-K and third grade are heavily influenced by resources available to students—in school, in families, or both. Lead researcher and author Sean F. Reardon then looked at where those same students finished up at the end of eighth grade, trying to pinpoint the contribution made by a child’s educational experiences between grades three and eight. Reardon’s findings indicate that average third grade scores do not predict the rate at which average scores change between third and eighth grade. Starting out ahead was no guarantee of superior growth; students who started out behind could catch up and exceed the growth rate of their peers. What’s more, students in low-SES districts showed high growth rates somewhat more often than did students in high-SES districts.

All of this points to the fact that living in poverty does not axiomatically guarantee poor academic outcomes for students, even if it’s commonly associated with starting from behind. However, Reardon’s geographic and subgroup analyses bear out that poverty often does equate to poor academic outcomes. Taking a wide-angle look at the areas where third grade test scores start out high and are followed by high growth shows a concentration in areas one might expect: suburbs and exurbs in wealthy areas of the northeast and California, for example. But low scores followed by low growth patterns are more common in the Deep South and rural areas in the West. There are also many districts across the country where high scores are followed by average or below average growth. Importantly, tracking the districts where third grade test scores start out low but are followed by high growth picks out some areas of Tennessee and the city of Chicago, among others. (Check out this nifty tool from the New York Times based on this analysis, with which users can compare the growth rates of various districts across the nation.)

It cannot be overstated that this is a very-high-level analysis. A school district is too large an entity with which to make meaningful determinations of school-level quality, charter schools are lumped in with districts, and Reardon creates a single score aggregating both math and English language arts test scores as a means of comparison. But these design facets should not take away from the overall message: Quality education matters at all ages. High quality early education can give young children a firm foundation for learning, but that foundation can be eroded by lower quality education going forward. Similarly, low quality early education or socioeconomic challenges can result in a poor start, but steady doses of high quality education over time can help those students make up ground.

To get a clearer view of school quality, users need to dig into finer-grained data to uncover those places—individual schools or classrooms—that are providing the most beneficial education. In short, good schools matter. Those providing both a firm foundation and strong continuous growth must be identified and their practices replicated. But figuring out which districts are having the greatest success lifting achievement and where they are located is a good start.

One final note: Continuous growth in higher grade levels appears to be Reardon’s holy grail, but his analysis offers no indication of how many of the students’ test scores approach proficiency at any point in time. Growth matters, without question, but it must have a proper end goal—what a student must know and be able to do at any given end point. Growth by itself is not a worthy enough benchmark.

SOURCE: Sean F. Reardon, “Educational opportunity in early and middle childhood: Variation by place and age,” Stanford Graduate School of Education working paper (December, 2017).