The Education Gadfly Weekly

It’s been a great year for the Buckeye State. LeBron is back—and the Cavs are rolling into the playoffs. The Ohio State University knocked off the Ducks in the national championship, the economy is heating up, and heck, state government actually has more than eighty-nine cents in its rainy day fund.

But if you’ve been following the education headlines, you might feel a little down. The fight over Common Core and assessments continues to be bruising. Legislators are seriously scrutinizing the state’s problematic charter school law. Various scandals continue to plague local schools, and we’re not that far removed from the meltdown in Columbus City Schools. To shake off the wintertime education blues, I offer my list of the top five most exciting things happening in Ohio education today.

1. Four for Four Schools

In 2013–14, forty Ohio schools made a clean sweep on the four value-added components of the state’s school report cards, receiving an A on each one. This is an impressive feat. These schools had to demonstrate significant contributions not only to overall student growth, but also for their special needs, gifted, and low-achieving students. (Starting two years ago, Ohio began to rate schools on an A–F scale based on the gains—or value added—of students in these three subgroups.) In fact, one could argue that “four for four” schools are best fulfilling the aspiration of “no child left behind.” So hats off to these forty schools (out of more than 1,400 eligible) for proving that good schools can help all students make big academic progress each year. Check whether your local school made this distinguished list by clicking on this link.

2. Great Charter Networks

The Buckeye State is the proud home of several outstanding—and growing—charter school networks serving mainly low-income and minority students. In Northeast Ohio, the high-performing Breakthrough and ICAN charter networks will together educate more than three thousand students this school year. Columbus has Ohio’s only KIPP charter school, which is on track to educate two thousand students by 2020. Fantastic charter networks United Schools and the Graham Schools also make also their homes in the capital city. Farther downstate, Fordham’s hometown of Dayton has the hard-charging college-prep school Dayton Early College Academy (DECA), which also recently opened a feeder school, DECA Prep. High-quality, grassroots charters like these are blazing a new path forward in Ohio charter quality.

3. Relentless Urban Superintendents

Not to be outdone, several of Ohio’s urban districts are showing signs of improvement under a great crop of superintendents. In Cincinnati Public Schools, Superintendent Mary Ronan and her team are embracing the Common Core standards and have engaged local businesses to help support their successful implementation. Meanwhile, in Columbus, Dan Good is undertaking a massive overhaul of the district that has earned the support of the community. In Cleveland, schools CEO Eric Gordon, Mayor Frank Jackson, and the business and philanthropic community are driving the bold reforms laid forth in the “Cleveland Plan.” Perhaps less heralded than their Big-C counterparts, the energetic leadership of Superintendents Lori Ward in Dayton and Romules Durant in Toledo are also pushing the reform needle in the right direction. The dynamism of urban school leaders like these promises a much brighter future for the school systems they lead.

4. Vocational Education

For too long, vocational education has been considered an inferior pathway for high school students. But the winds are shifting in Ohio. Last year, Governor Kasich made transforming vocational education a major theme in his State of the State speech. On the policy side, the last General Assembly created five categories of funding for students who participate in a vocational program. The incremental amounts range from an additional $1,210 per student (for students focusing on family and consumer sciences) to $4,800 (for agricultural, construction, health science, and other fields). To complement the increased attention on technical education, the state is developing detailed report cards that show the performance of the state’s ninety-one Career and Technical Planning Districts. Ohio’s turn towards robust vocational education bodes well for Buckeye students journeying on a career-ready path.

5. Competitive Grants for Innovation

The Straight A Fund is Ohio’s new $250 million competitive grant program that rewards the most creative and innovative educational ideas. On February 5th, I had the opportunity to examine these projects at the Straight A Day. The most exciting projects were those that engaged their local businesses; in Springfield, the Straight A grant is helping to create a job-readiness program in conjunction with the local chamber of commerce, community college, and more than a dozen employers. In Eastern Ohio, a consortium of schools, technical centers, and businesses are teaming up to create the Young Entrepreneurs Consortium. And Marysville School District is building an early college academy in partnership with its local career and technical center and Honda Manufacturing, one of the area’s largest employers. Alex Fischer, the grant program’s chair, is correct when he writes that the “Straight A Fund has inspired a wave of creativity.” Cheers to state policymakers—and to local schools—for making innovation a key priority.

To be sure, many more inspiring things are happening in Ohio’s education universe. What do you find most exciting in your neck of the woods? Tell us what you’re seeing and we’ll consider posting them.

As Ohio marches through testing season, concerns continue to surface over whether the state's New Learning Standards are in the best interests of Buckeye students. Though Ohioans are understandably focused on what these standards mean for their home, the relative success neighboring Kentucky is having with the standards might calm Ohio’s fears—and perhaps inspire it to make its implementation more effective.

In February 2010, Kentucky was the first state to adopt the Common Core State Standards and incorporate them into the Kentucky Core Academic Standards (KCAS). Common Core was widely seen as a huge step up for Kentucky—Fordham called Kentucky’s prior standards “among the worst in the country” and gave both the language arts and mathematics standards a D grade. Much like Ohio, Kentucky played a significant role in the drafting process for the Common Core. Teachers, the public, administrators, higher education officials, and the staff from three agencies (the Council on Postsecondary Education, the Education Professional Standards Board, and the Kentucky Department of Education) gave input and feedback on the standards.

The new standards were first taught in Kentucky schools in the 2011–12 school year. The state’s implementation of Common Core centered on leadership teams made up of content teachers from each grade level, special education teachers, instructional leaders, and administrators from all 173 school districts. Team members received in-depth training on the standards, and math and English teachers were charged with breaking down the standards into student learning targets. Team members then shared the targets and training with their colleagues back in their respective districts, creating a vitally important sense of ownership and buy-in. To further supplement training efforts, the Kentucky Department of Education provided teachers with a new online system of instructional resources and formative assessments that were aligned with the standards. This provided teachers with the resources they needed without mandating their use. In addition, teachers, school leaders, and district officials meet one day each month to discuss issues regarding implementation and to share solutions and ideas. 

Aside from offering quality training and resources to teachers, the department has also done an excellent job sharing information with the public. Their website contains videos, resources geared toward specific groups, and plenty of fact sheets available for public perusal. There is even an entire initiative called ReadyKentucky whose sole purpose is to educate teachers, parents, leaders, and the public on the standards and assessments. The department has also asked the public to make recommendations about specific standards they believe need to be changed as implementation continues. 

While implementation certainly has been focused and energetic, the achievement of Kentucky students is the best indicator of Common Core’s success there. In the 2011–12 school year, Kentucky replaced its old state exams with brand new ones (the new tests are called K-PREP) that were designed to reflect the rigor of the Common Core. Proficiency rates fell during the first year students were tested under the new system—as most predicted they would—but scores have steadily improved since then. In an October 2014 press release, the department shared its most recent achievement results. Education Commissioner Terry Holliday declared, “[T]he numbers show, without a doubt, that we are making progress.” 

There are a whole slew of positive trends to which Holliday could justifiably point with pride. High school juniors who took the ACT in 2014 recorded the highest scores since all juniors in Kentucky started taking the test in 2008. In addition, the percentage of juniors who met the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education’s benchmarks for college readiness have increased in English, math, and reading each year since Common Core was introduced. Overall student performance on state tests has improved: Since 2012, elementary schools made gains in reading, math, science, and writing. Middle schools increased each year in all content areas except one (language mechanics), and high schools made gains in science and social studies. Students in groups that historically suffer from achievement gaps are performing at higher levels across multiple content areas and grade levels than they were in previous years.

The bottom line is that with faithful implementation and giving the standards time to work, Kentucky is seeing solid academic gains. While implementation and the upcoming first round of assessments will undoubtedly lead to concerns and debate, Ohio should take a page out of Kentucky’s book and practice patience and commitment: Implement faithfully, revise carefully, and give the standards (and Ohio educators) time to work. 

Not much in the way of fireworks, but rather many points of agreement emerged during last week’s Education Speakers Series event on teacher evaluations. Ohio Federation of Teachers President Melissa Cropper and Students First Ohio’s State Policy Director Matt Verber began at the same point: teachers are the most-important in-school factor in student achievement. But when, how, and how much teachers should be evaluated were all matters of discussion. Both panelists felt there were questions to be resolved about the possible use of “shared attribution” for evaluating teachers. The question of whether student surveys should be used in evaluations generated no consensus. And the question of how evaluation data should be used – development vs. removal – proved a predictable bone of contention.

We appreciate the time and contribution of both our panelists in this important discussion, and thank our audience for their valuable questions and comments. If you missed the event, check out the full video:

And look for future events in our Education Speakers Series coming soon. Anything you want to see? Drop us a line: [email protected]. 

Cheers to State Auditor Dave Yost, for going there. Charter law reform is a cause célèbre in Ohio. An influential report, a determined governor, and two bills being heard in House committees all feature excellent reform provisions, mostly in the “sponsor-centric” realm. But last week, Yost laid out some reform provisions that only an auditor would think of—things like accounting practice changes, attendance reporting changes, and defining the public/private divide inherent in many charter schools’ operations. These are all welcome additions to the ongoing debate from an arm of state government directly concerned with auditing charter schools.

Jeers to Mansfield City Schools, for nitpicking Yost and his team as they attempt to help the district avert fiscal disaster. Mansfield has been in fiscal emergency for over a year, and their finances are under the aegis of a state oversight committee. Yost’s team identified $4.7 million in annual savings opportunities. Instead of getting to work on implementing as many of those changes as possible, district administrators last week decided to pick holes in the methodology and timing of the report. Kind of like the teenager who swears “I’m going” just as Dad finally loses his cool. And the fiscal abyss is still out there.

Jeers to Shadyside Local Schools, for doing exactly the same thing as Mansfield. Although after eleven years in fiscal caution status, Shadyside is less a case of a petulant teen than of a failure to launch.

Cheers to Pickerington Schools Superintendent Valerie Browning-Thompson for using report card data to drive important changes in her district to directly benefit students. In her first “State of the District” report last week, she praised what is working and outlined plans to address areas of poor showing on the state report card. Those include a D in gifted programming and missed indicators in math and science at certain grade levels.

Cheers to the editorial staff of the Columbus Dispatch, for warning that opting out of state testing is likely an overreaction. Editors decry the slippery slope that could result from curtailing testing rashly – ending accountability systems, the Common Core, or both. But they also decry the anxiety level being generated by adults around a fixable issue that is washing over their children as well. “No 9-year-old has reason to fear a PARCC test,” they say, “unless an adult has instilled that fear.”

Cheers to the Panini Lady of Canfield Schools. The Guru of the Grill Press serves popular and tasty sandwiches to her students with a side order of adult caring and concern—both for healthy eating and their overall well-being.

Across the nation, the monopoly of traditional school districts over public education is slowly eroding. Trust-busting policies like public charter schools and vouchers have given parents and students more options than ever before. But how vibrant are school marketplaces in America’s largest districts? Now in its fourth year, the Education Choice and Competition Index is one of the best examinations of educational markets, rating the hundred most populous districts along four key dimensions: (1) access to school options; (2) processes that align student preferences with schools (e.g., common applications, clear information on schools); (3) policies that favor the growth of popular schools, such as funds following students; and (4) subsidies for poor families. The top-rated district, you ask? The Recovery School District in New Orleans won top marks in 2014, as it has in the two prior years. New York City and Newark, New Jersey, are close behind the Big Easy. The study commends these cities for their ample supply of school options—and just as importantly, for policies that support quality choice. For instance, this trio of cities (along with Denver) has adopted an algorithm that optimally matches student preferences with school assignments. All impressive stuff from which Ohio’s cities can learn (only Columbus was ranked, and it received mediocre marks). In the Buckeye State, for example, local funds rarely follow students to their school of choice, and reliable information on school quality is all too scarce. Lastly, this Ohio-based Gadfly writer would be remiss to not offer a suggestion to sharpen this fine study. The list of rated cities appears to tilt toward states with countywide districts, while states where district lines are tightly drawn—such as Ohio—seem to have too few cities included (Cleveland and Cincinnati?). So why not rank the most densely populated cities—over a certain population threshold—in addition to ranking the top one hundred districts by absolute student counts? This is a small bone to pick, of course, as Brookings is doing policymakers—and choice advocates—a great favor in outlining the key components of a robust school marketplace while keeping tabs on which cities lead and lag behind. 

SOURCE: Grover J. Whitehurst and Ellie Klein, The 2014 Education Choice and Competition Index (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, February 2015).

Inter-district open enrollment (OEI) is a little-discussed school choice option (and the oldest choice program in Ohio) whereby districts open their schools to students from outside their jurisdiction. Today, 81.5 percent of all school districts in the state offer some form of open enrollment, yet there has been little formal evaluation of such programs, especially in terms of student achievement. Ronald Iarussi, head of the Mahoning County Education Service Center, and Karen Larwin, a professor at Youngstown State University, looked at ten years of student-level data in Mahoning County districts that offer open enrollment and examined the achievement of students utilizing the option. This is particularly important because Mahoning County has the second-highest OEI utilization numbers in the state. Achievement was defined as standardized assessment scores on state exams (reading, math, science, social science, and writing) for grades 3–8 as well as high school. Three findings stand out: 1) Students who left their home district for open enrollment performed at similar levels as those remaining in the home district; 2) students who left their home district for open enrollment performed, on average, slightly above their peers in that new district, even if they arrived in their new district with lower scores to start with; 3)  and both of these effects were amplified for students who left the very lowest-performing district in the county (Youngstown City Schools). The implication here, articulated more in a recent TV interview with the authors, is that if students perform as well or better when they move and so do their peers in both the sending and receiving districts, perhaps it is time to rethink old biases against opening district borders. Too often, discussions around open enrollment focus on funding, “winners” vs. “losers”, and other adult interests, but this report makes a compelling case that students are benefitting from being in a school of their choosing.

SOURCE: Ronald J. Iarussi and Karen H. Larwin, “The Academic Impact of Inter-district Open Enrollment in Public Schools: The Results from a Decade of Choice,” Mahoning County Educational Services Center,  Mahoning County Career and Technical Center, Youngstown State University (February 2015).