The Education Gadfly Weekly

Before we know it, the idyllic, tree-lined university campus with its stately brick buildings, grand lecture halls, and manicured lawns may become a relic of the past. What may prompt the demise of the traditional university? Massive open online courses, or MOOCs.

Whether (and when) this will actually happen was precisely the question at a recent seminar, hosted by The Ohio State University’s Harvey Goldberg Center. It was evident that MOOCs have some in the ivory towers spooked, for two reasons: One, they’re free—and how does one compete against free? Two, elite universities are kickstarting MOOCs. Coursera, of which OSU is a participant, is affiliated with top-notch universities like Stanford and Duke. MOOCs are also catching on in Europe as well. So, unlike for-profit online providers of education, such as the University of Phoenix, MOOCs are both free and linked to prestigious institutions.

Despite the upside to MOOCs, as they’re currently designed, it’s far from inevitable that they’ll outflank the traditional university any time soon. They don’t yet grant credit or degrees, and they certainly don’t field football teams. But, it’s clear they have the potential to send the traditional model of higher education into the artifact bin—especially if higher-ed costs continue to balloon.

MOOCs could put an end to the traditional K-12 education model as well. As currently designed, MOOCs could be used in upper grade levels. Gifted students or students with a particular, niche interest could take these online courses and receive credit for them. Think about a top-of-the-class senior, who’s exhausted all of her school’s science courses: Might she not want to enroll in edX’s Introduction to Solid State Chemistry, taught by an MIT professor? Or maybe there’s a high-schooler with a particular interest in computer software. He could enroll for free to take Coursera’s Networks: Friends, Money, and Bytes, taught by a Princeton professor.

MOOCs could be adapted all the way down to middle and elementary schools. Fordham’s Checker Finn suggests that elite K-12 schools, such as Dalton and Andover, could dive into the MOOC market by developing courses for younger students. Sure, you’d still need a teacher to facilitate learning and manage the classroom—but schools may not need a teacher in the traditional sense. We are already seeing this in K-12 in models like Rocket Ship and Carpe Diem.

Yes, there are a plentitude of questions for Ohio’s policymakers to ponder in advance of wholesale (or even small-to moderate-scale) adoption of the MOOC model of education—whether for higher education or K-12 education. Who is accountable for quality and who ensures the kids actually learn? How is credit granted for taking these courses—and how can schools verify that the course was, in fact, completed? How does funding work for free courses? Who sets prices?

In recent blog posts, economists Gary Becker and Richard Posner both suggest that the MOOCs have the potential to revolutionize education, and the costs associated with it. So, while there are many open questions and push-back from groups with an interest in sustaining the traditional models of education, MOOCs are very likely the next giant leap forward in improving and democratizing education. Wikipedia put Encyclopedia Britannica out of business—as did iTunes end the age of compact discs. Both innovations, most would agree, have vastly improved and increased access to education and entertainment material. Might MOOCs (or whatever evolution of MOOCs eventually survives) end the age of the traditional classroom and school?

Our annual analysis of Ohio’s public school performance data has been released, in full (parts and parcel were released in October). Using publically available data from the Ohio Department of Education’s preliminary 2011-12 Report Card data set, released in October, along with several other sets of data, we examine how schools—traditional public school districts and charter schools—do across the Buckeye State. The report especially focuses on public school performance in four of Ohio’s major cities: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton.

The report includes ten-year trend data on student enrollment and proficiency rates, academic performance results for 2011-12, and a projection of proficiency rates when the Common Core arrives in 2014-15. In short, this report compiles fresh information for policy makers, educators, and parents about how well schools are serving youngsters across Ohio.

To access the report, click on the image below.

Looking for a stocking stuffer for that finicky ed-reformer in your family? Look no further than our collection of publications from 2012. This year’s research reports touched on timely and relevant topics for the Buckeye State such as teacher compensation, the implementation of the Common Core academic standards, student mobility, charter school governance, and special education. Check out our publications below and on our website.  

The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the Buckeye State – by Nelson Smith

Is it time for Ohio to take bolder steps toward turning around its most troubled schools and districts? If so, what might the alternatives look like? In looking for alternatives to simply doing more of the same, Ohio policymakers are looking to the experiences of other states. Among the boldest and most interesting of these is Louisiana’s Recovery School District (RSD), which is accomplishing both significant gains in student achievement and consequential impacts on district-level standards. In this recent report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute author Nelson Smith ask if and how the RSD concept might be a model for Ohio.

Teacher Compensation Based on Effectiveness: The Harrison (CO) School District's Pay-for-Performance Plan – by F. Mike Miles and Ellen Belcher

This report, authored by Superintendent Mike Miles, takes a detailed look at the Harrison (CO) School District 2's Pay-for-Performance Plan. The Harrison Plan confronted the dual challenges of defining an effective teacher and identifying all the things that demonstrate her effectiveness. This how-to guide is meant to serve as a tool and model for Ohio’s school districts.

Future Shock: Early Common Core implementation lessons from Ohio – by Ellen Belcher

With the 2014-15 Common-Core transition looming, we wondered: How are Ohio’s educators preparing themselves for this big change? Who is doing this work and what can other schools and districts learn from the early adopters? What are lessons, hopes, and fears facing those on the frontlines who have to lead Ohio’s embrace of significantly more rigorous academic standards?

Applying Systems Thinking to Improve Special Education in Ohio – by Nathan Levenson

Special education is a “tough nut to crack.” As it stands now, special education is far too compliance-driven, expensive, siloed, and opaque. This paper, written by Harvard MBA and former district superintendent Nathan Levenson, calls for system-wide reform in special education. Levenson uses systems thinking to provide common-sense ideas for saving money while also improving the educational services given to Ohio’s 275,000 students with special needs.

Student Nomads: Mobility in Ohio's Schools - with Community Research Partners

Student mobility – a non-promotional change of schools—happens more frequently in the Buckeye State that people generally appreciate or understand. To conduct this research, Fordham partnered with Community Research Partners and 10 other funders. We analyzed over 5 million student records to depict the magnitude and patterns of mobility our home state. We dive deep into five metro areas to examine closely how students move within districts, between districts, and from charter to traditional public schools. We encourage readers to dig into the data, and consider their implications: Should public policies try to slow student mobility? Encourage it? Or make policies better attuned to it?

Moving Up: Fordham's 2011-12 Sponsorship Accountability Report

Moving Up is the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's charter school sponsorship accountability report for 2011-12. Through it, we hope to help readers understand the complexities of charter schools and better appreciate the hard work of the teachers, school leaders, and board members who serve not only the schools we sponsor but also the schools around the state and nation that are working to make a difference in the lives of children. This year's report features an in-depth look at the struggles of two Fordham-sponsored schools in Dayton; it is researched and written by former Dayton Daily News reporter and editor Ellen Belcher.

How much is too much when it comes to compensation of district superintendents and charter school administrators?  

In the last couple of months several newspapers have run front page stories on the compensation being paid school administrators in Ohio. In late September, the Cincinnati Enquirer ran a series of stories on what superintendents and treasurers in southwest Ohio and northern Kentucky were making, while just this past weekend the Dayton Daily News ran a story on the overall compensation paid a charter school administrator and her family to run seven schools in Ohio. And, the Youngstown Vindicator ran an editorial on Tuesday pointing out the insanity of the Youngstown City School District’s Cadillac health care plan for that fiscally and academically bankrupt district’s administrators and teachers.  I also sit on my local school district’s business advisory council and one of the thorniest issues the group grapples with is compensation of top school administrators. Talking money and compensation for public sector employees is a highly sensitive issue politically, especially since the economic downturn of 2008.

My basic view on matters of compensation is pretty straightforward: Highly effective superintendents and charter school operators deserve to be paid well as they work long hours and deal with myriad and complicated human, fiscal, academic, and political issues. I believe the same thing about great teachers. Pay them what they are worth. But, public sector employee compensation should be transparent (no hidden benefits or perks); and there should be a marketplace for talent. Let school districts and charter school operators compete openly for talent, and from this competition the market should help set the bar for compensation.

But, when it comes to the compensation and salary of public school officials – be they district or charter – there is also a political dynamic at play that board members and others who set school executive compensation need to understand and appreciate. In short, what will a community and taxpayers tolerate? ‘How much is too much’ is a question district school boards have to grapple with as they also have to help lead the case for school levies. Voters want to know how much the administration is making and whether they are worth it.

Here is what has been reported recently per district administrator compensation. In Ohio, the average superintendent’s pay grew 4.5 percent – from $98,637 to $103,093 – between 2008 and 2011. In addition, many superintendents have excellent benefits packages that include generously funded defined benefit pensions, topflight health care benefits for them and their families (and in some cased over-the-top benefits – see Youngstown Vindicator), and many have car/travel allowances. The Cincinnati Enquirer looked at the salaries of more than 130 superintendents in the Greater Cincinnati area and reported that “many top school executives received perks in compensation packages that most other educators don’t get. Further, as school districts struggle to compete for talent at the top, state salary databases show superintendents and treasurer take-home pay grew during the recession.” The Enquirer went on to report that in the Cincinnati metro area “superintendents averaged a 5 percent salary gain, from $117,140 for a typical superintendent to $123,008.”

After the Enquirer story there was public uproar about the pay and benefits provided local superintendents and top administrators. One blogger captured the reaction of many with his “Piggly Wiggly Oinker School Superintendents Are Getting Rich on Your Dime” post. In November voters in the Cincinnati metro-area rejected half the area school levies on the ballot. Many in public education saw this as yet again further evidence that school districts have to be highly sensitive to what they pay their top administrators, even the very best ones.

But, it isn’t just traditional school districts that need to worry about what they pay their top school administrators. Charter schools, as public schools that receive taxpayer dollars, also need to think carefully and clearly about what their leaders receive in compensation, and how this will be perceived in the larger community. This leads me to the recent story in the Dayton Daily News about charter schools. That paper ran a story on the compensation paid to a family running a charter management organization that serves about 2,000 kids in seven Ohio charters. The paper reported that “Tax records obtained by the Daily News show CEO Pammer-Satow received a base pay of $168,466 in 2010 along with a $60,000 bonus and other compensation valued at $25,573. Her husband, COO Clinton Satow, received a base pay of$126,000, bonus of $45,000 and $14,000 in other compensation.” Other members of the family are also employed by the management company in various capacities.

The Dayton Daily News reporter called me and asked for my reaction about “a couple making over $400,000 a year” to run seven charter schools in Ohio (they also run three schools in Florida through a private management company)? I said, “That’s tough to defend.” I also went on to comment, “at a minimum they are politically tone deaf to the realities of perception out in the community.” My comments have upset some charter school advocates who argue that as the schools perform well why should I or anyone else care what the leaders are paid? Why shouldn’t they be rewarded for starting schools that are proving to be successful, at least in comparison to their competitors? Isn’t the spirit behind charters to inject entrepreneurialism and business principles to education? Shouldn’t charter operators benefit from the fruits of their labor?

My reaction to these questions is that charter schools are only viable as long as they receive political support. All of public education is under the microscope and what is being spent on schools, and how the money is spent, is now supercharged territory. In this political environment where there is much talk about “doing more with less,” it is hard to defend families paying themselves more than $400,000 a year in public tax dollars to run a handful of charters. But, am I right? Should we care what charter leaders make?

The 129^th General Assembly wrapped up its business last week. Included in the flurry of lame-duck legislation sent to the governor’s desk was House Bill 555. Its major provisions include:

• Moving Ohio from our current school-rating system (and its nebulous terms like Continuous Improvement) to an A-to-F rating system based on broader performance measures that more accurately gauge how schools and districts are actually performing;
• Establishing closure criteria for drop-out recovery schools;
• Establishing a new charter-sponsor evaluation process; and
• Adding a second application period for the Educational Choice Scholarship Program.

Unlike previous non-budget years, 2012 was a busy one for education policymaking. Two other major education bills were signed into law: Senate Bill 316 – the governor’s mid-biennium budget for education – and House Bill 525 – legislation formalizing the Cleveland Mayor Jackson’s Education Reform Plan.

 SB 316 included many small tweaks to state education law; but it also included three big policy changes. Specifically, it:

• Established a third-grade “reading guarantee” and accompanying diagnostic and intervention requirements;
• Increased accountability for charter-school sponsors, drop-out recovery schools, and teacher-preparation programs; and
• Made explicit that “blended-learning” school models are permitted in Ohio.

HB 525, which applies only to the Cleveland Metropolitan School District:

• Gives the district superintendent greater authority to improve the district’s lowest-performing schools;
• Codifies a new teacher evaluation system, eliminates seniority as a sole/primary factor in personnel decisions, and gives principals more authority in hiring and evaluation of teachers;
• Establishes a “Transformation Alliance” to screen potential charter sponsors in the city and make school performance information more readily available and understandable to parents and the larger community; and
• Authorizes the district to share local levy dollars with high-performing charter schools.

Taken together with 2011 policy changes, these bills make Ohio a national leader in education reform. The questions now on the table are: What next? Do we stop – have all necessary and meaningful policy changes been made? Do we march forward – what work is left to be tackled?

The answer is to keep moving forward. As my colleague Terry Ryan testified recently to the Senate Education Committee, now is not the time to lose the reform momentum. There is no doubt Ohio has made tremendous strides in improving education policy in recent months. Yet, we cannot rest on those laurels; there is still work to be done. There are (at least) four major education issues on which the governor and General Assembly should focus in 2013:

School funding: Like his predecessor, Governor Kasich has delayed his school-funding “fix” until his second budget bill. Details about his proposal are scant, but based on past actions and public comments Kasich’s funding model is not likely to add much – if any – new money. It is also likely to encourage innovation and cooperation among schools and districts, and focus on accountability for performance at the building and district level.

As lawmakers consider the governor’s funding plan, they should encourage and support a move toward a weighted-student funding model that better targets resources to the needs of students and rewards performance. As we and other reformers have argued over the years, such a system would:

• Flow full state funding to the school building a child attends, and encourage local districts to do the same with local dollars;
• Vary per-pupil amounts based on children’s individual needs and circumstances (and help improve the data that this funding would be based on); and
• Deliver resources to the building as real, flexible dollars and give school leaders authority on spending, staffing, and program decisions.
  
  

The FY2014-15 budget should continue encouraging and incenting collaboration and cooperation among local schools and between schools and other public entities. Lawmakers should also not roll back the state’s requirements for reporting funding and spending information and other data so that the public can see how their schools are handling the dollars allocated to them. Policies should be enacted to require truer reporting on Academic Return on Investment (see Nate Levenson’s recent report for Fordham).

Common Core: Ohio has adopted the Common Core standards and joined the PARCC testing consortium. State- and district-level training for teachers is underway. But the fidelity and timing of implementation varies widely from district-to-district and school-to-school across the state. Teachers haven’t seen the tests they’ll be administering in the 2014-15 school year, and questions linger about the cost and feasibility of computer-based testing (as required by the PARCC consortium). Colleges of education are still ramping up (too slowly) Common Core training for future educators.

In 2013, first and foremost, state lawmakers should not roll back Ohio’s commitment to the Common Core. Instead they must be open to hearing local educators’ concerns about implementation and the possibility of providing more state support – be it professional development, curriculum guidance, or money – to meet their development needs. State leaders – along with the business community and other allies – must be the public voice of support for the Common Core in order to minimize public backlash when the tougher tests – and lower scores – come out (see more in our annual report card analysis).

Voucher accountability: Approximately twenty-two thousand Ohio students attend a private school using a state-funded voucher. If these students comprised a district, it would be the fourth- or fifth-largest one in the state. Yet, the schools these students attend are virtually unaccountable for academic performance when compared to their district peers. This includes private schools in which more than 75 percent of students are publicly funded.

Lawmakers have greatly increased private-school choice in Ohio over the past two years, and should seek to increase it more in 2013. But, in tandem with growing these programs they most also come up with real and meaningful accountability for the private schools that receive significant state funds to educate kids. Ohio could consider a sliding scale of accountability (i.e., the more students a private school enrolls via vouchers, the more closely its accountability matches that of a public school). Ohio can look to states like Indiana, Florida, and Louisiana for examples of rational private-school accountability.

Implementation: Practice doesn’t change with the signing of a bill. From state rule-making and program development to local implementation of state policies, the real work begins after the changes are law. And this work takes time. The State Board of Education, Ohio Department of Education, and local educators are still in the midst of implementing not just 2012 policy changes but those from years prior, including the state’s many Race to the Top commitments.

Lawmakers must strike a balance: Be patient as local schools adapt to recent policy changes, yet don’t relax accountability or lessen expectations for performance. Lawmakers also must be open to learning from implementation and revisiting policies that need tweaking. And, finally, Ohio need to hirer crackerjack leaders for both the Ohio Department of Education and for higher education. Better integrating and coordinating these jobs would also be a worthy and important step forward.

Foreword

In both our role as researchers and as a charter school authorizer we have come to appreciate over-and-over again the critical importance of school leaders in making schools great. In our “Needles in a Haystack: Lessons from Ohio’s high-performing, high-need urban schools” report from 2010 we identified school leaders as one of the keys to these schools’ success. School leaders drive success for their buildings, and in the schools we authorize (currently 11 buildings serving about 2,700 students) school leaders are pivotal in leading school success and improvement efforts. Public Agenda and the Ohio Business Roundtable have also made it clear how important great school leaders are in their excellent new research on high performing Ohio schools Failure is Not an Option.

There is no harder job than running a successful school building for high-poverty students; nor a more important job. Yet, there are school leaders across the state and the nation who do it day-in and day-out, and too few get recognized for their great work.

We are fortunate that some of these leaders work in schools that Fordham sponsors and it is our privilege to tell a little bit of their stories and the impact they are having on students in Ohio. This Q&A with Andy Boy, the founder and executive director of Columbus Collegiate Academy (CCA), is the second of our seven-part series on school leadership. (Please see our Q&A with Dr. Glenda Brown.) Boy leads two of Columbus’ highest-performing charter schools, which together serve over 200 inner-city students.

Columbus Collegiate Academy's Andy Boy

Introduction

Andy Boy was not the only one in 2005 who didn’t really know what was going on at Cincinnati’s then-celebrated W.E.B. DuBois Academy. A science teacher whose students were making stunning jumps on the state’s proficiency tests, he and the charter school’s legion of supporters had no idea that the school’s director was cheating the state by inflating enrollment figures and pilfering money for personal use.

In 2006, Wilson H. Willard, III, resigned and, in 2008, he pleaded guilty to charges of theft and tampering with records. He was sentenced to four years in prison.

After that experience, Boy, now 34, considered leaving education. But in August 2006, he was one of 13 individuals chosen for the Boston-based Building Excellent Schools Fellowship. After completing the year-long program, the Bellefontaine, Ohio, native, came to Columbus and set out to start a charter middle school.

In the fall of 2008, Columbus Collegiate Academy opened with a class of 57 sixth graders. Classes were held in a Baptist church in the Weinland Park neighborhood. Three years later, the school moved to a former Columbus City Schools building on the near east side.

Now in its second year there, Columbus Collegiate Academy has 185 students in grades 6-8, and it earned an “A” on the state’s 2011-12 report card. A new sister school opened this fall in west Columbus. Its 75 sixth graders attend classes in the Boys and Girls Club.

Boy, a father of two, wants to open still more schools, including an elementary school.

In 2010, Columbus Collegiate won a “silver” EPIC award from New Leaders for New Schools for its gains in student achievement. In 2011, the school won a “gold” award, recognition given that year to just four charter schools in the country.

The following are edited excerpts from an interview with Boy.

Interview with Andy Boy

Q: What happened at the W.E.B. DuBois Academy?

A: Prior to the moment that I saw about 10 men and women in black trench coats walk into the school, I had no idea that anything less than honest was going on. In the last days before I left, I had no idea what was going to come. I knew there were issues with student records. I knew it wasn’t good.

Q: Did the experience demoralize you?

A: I was close to leaving education when I saw the scandal unfold. I thought we were the best thing that had ever happened in education. But I realized that if we were the best, then I probably was in the wrong profession.

Q: Did you feel duped?

A: No. I felt that we did 99 percent of things right – and 1 percent of them so very wrong. After the experience, I just wasn’t sure that this work was feasible or sustainable. I was tremendously discouraged.

Q: In Columbus Collegiate Academy’s early days, your father loaned the school $80,000. Did you pay him back?

A: We paid him back in three months. This strategy of growing slowly, one grade level at a time, is a terrible business model. And Ohio’s school funding method makes budgeting challenging. When we added a grade, we weren’t going to be paid by the state for all the new students we were enrolling until October. But we had to pay the staff as soon as school started – before we started receiving payments from the state. The shortfall was a temporary thing, a cash-flow issue.

Q: Columbus Collegiate Academy students are penalized for missing school even when they’re sick. Explain the thinking.

A: Students work on a paycheck system. If they are tardy or absent, or if they don’t have their homework done, they’re docked. They also get bonuses for class-wide behavior and other positive things. If a student doesn’t come to school, he or she loses $15 on his or her paycheck. If you don’t’ come to work, you don’t get paid.

Q: Do I understand that all of your staff teaches?

A: This is the first year that I am not teaching. Some other folks don’t teach. Our director of operations and our office manager do not teach. But everybody else has some classroom responsibility.

Q: Was it smart to start a school with a sixth-grade class? Isn’t middle school the toughest time to reset students’ expectations about school? At that age, aren’t many of your students so far behind that it’s almost impossible for them to catch up?

A: We started with sixth grade because it’s where the highest need is. It’s one of the most challenging places to find success. It’s one of the places many schools are failing kids. When we surveyed the school situation in Columbus, middle school was the weakest grade band. We felt it was easier to enroll sixth graders than to take a student out of their school in fifth grade [Editor’s note: Columbus operates K-5 elementary schools and 6-8 middle schools.]. It was a natural break. It would be so much better if we were getting sixth graders who were on grade level. Fifty percent of our sixth graders are three or more years behind. We’re teaching addition and subtraction. It’s very hard to get them ready for seventh grade in one year. Our future plans do include opening a grade school.

Q: Talk about United Schools Network, the management company you’ve started with the goal of opening new schools. Some people say good charters are successful because they’re almost one-of-a-kind, that there’s nothing cookie-cutter about them.

A: We learn from the best. We take from the best. For example, we look at what the organization Uncommon Schools is doing. Our schools are always going to be unique. Our west side school has a very different demographic than our east side school. What will be the same at both is the high level of standards in how we deliver our curricula. We are not dictators. Although we want to build consistency, we are not going to stifle creativity. We’ll make changes that make sense. We will always want to learn.

Q: You expect a lot of your teachers. How long can schools like Columbus Collegiate Academy expect to hang on to teachers? Are the demands manageable over a 30- or 35-year career? Or do you think teaching is only for the young?

A: You see a young teaching staff in schools like ours because of funding. We can’t pay what district schools pay. Our teachers would be making $10,000 to $15,000 more in a traditional public school district. Hiring a lot of veteran teachers is difficult for reasons that are out of our control. We won’t be able to recruit them until Ohio reforms its charter school funding method. It’s also risky to work in schools like ours. Your job is not guaranteed. This year several of our teachers are pregnant with their first child and others are planning to have families. We are absolutely focused on how we can make this job sustainable for someone with a growing family. We have an opportunity to be a trailblazer and find ways to make this job work for young professionals. I don’t know if it’s sustainable for 35 years, but we’re going to try.

Q: Tell me about your interview process. You ask applicants whether it’s better to be strict or caring and, in your mind, there’s a right answer.

A: We always start with mission fit. We have some non-negotiable policies that people have to believe in. We also want to know how smart you are. How good of a writer are you? Sadly, so many people who apply for a position with us have serious writing deficiencies. I can deal with a mistake or two, but if you’re going to teach our kids English or writing, you better be pretty good at it yourself. We want to know if you are you smart enough to be in front of our students.

Q: How important are partners? What’s your relationship with the Columbus Boys and Girls Club?

A: We have lots of partners. The Boys and Girls Club is our closest partnership because we cohabitate. Our west side school is in its facility. It has been a great partner, and the site has been a great space to launch our second campus. The club’s programming gives us additional offerings for our students. A third of our west side school students are members of the club. They can stay in the building until 8 p.m., so some students are there from 8 until 8. They get breakfast, lunch, a snack, and dinner there. Many of the students will have the opportunity to participate in summer programing at low or no cost. We know that summer is when kids get into the wrong situations.

Q: You’ve researched the Harlem Children’s Zone. What did you learn from that effort?

A: It’s not the most sustainable model because of the cost. We had grandiose notions that we could do something similar in a neighborhood here in Columbus. But we’ve realized something very important – that we can accomplish more through partnerships, rather than being a cradle-to-grave operation. We can connect our families with partners who will help them.

Q: What’s your relationship with Columbus City Schools? It has been bumpy. Is it better?

A: It’s absolutely grown to be a relationship of mutual respect. We’ve put aside the district vs. charters debate and focused on how we can have meaningful relationships that benefit kids. It was adversarial, but we’ve put that aside. I think the improvement has a lot to do with creating a track record of success. Columbus City Schools are very straightforward that they’re interested in working with charter schools that are successful. Our track record has certainly helped us. That’s been the biggest driver in being able to have great conversations.

Q: What do you want to tell me that I haven’t asked about?

A: I’m so blessed to have such an amazing staff and board, and so much support from Fordham. I’m not a master of anything. I’m just fortunate to have a lot of people around me who are masters and can do what I can’t do. Our human capacity in this building is out of this world, and it goes back to the hiring process. We have some rock stars.

Q: Talk about a time when a student taught you something.

A: I’m thinking about an incident when we took our first eighth-grade trip to Chicago. Our kids don’t get opportunities like that often. We were staying in an Embassy Suites. One of our students said to me, “Wow, this is the good life.” It really cemented for me how important it is for us to give kids the opportunities that so many people take for granted. I understand where our students and families come from. I understand where I came from. I just learn so much from our kids and our families. It’s one of the reasons we’re in this work.

Before we know it, the idyllic, tree-lined university campus with its stately brick buildings, grand lecture halls, and manicured lawns may become a relic of the past. What may prompt the demise of the traditional university? Massive open online courses, or MOOCs.

Whether (and when) this will actually happen was precisely the question at a recent seminar, hosted by The Ohio State University’s Harvey Goldberg Center. It was evident that MOOCs have some in the ivory towers spooked, for two reasons: One, they’re free—and how does one compete against free? Two, elite universities are kickstarting MOOCs. Coursera, of which OSU is a participant, is affiliated with top-notch universities like Stanford and Duke. MOOCs are also catching on in Europe as well. So, unlike for-profit online providers of education, such as the University of Phoenix, MOOCs are both free and linked to prestigious institutions.

Despite the upside to MOOCs, as they’re currently designed, it’s far from inevitable that they’ll outflank the traditional university any time soon. They don’t yet grant credit or degrees, and they certainly don’t field football teams. But, it’s clear they have the potential to send the traditional model of higher education into the artifact bin—especially if higher-ed costs continue to balloon.

MOOCs could put an end to the traditional K-12 education model as well. As currently designed, MOOCs could be used in upper grade levels. Gifted students or students with a particular, niche interest could take these online courses and receive credit for them. Think about a top-of-the-class senior, who’s exhausted all of her school’s science courses: Might she not want to enroll in edX’s Introduction to Solid State Chemistry, taught by an MIT professor? Or maybe there’s a high-schooler with a particular interest in computer software. He could enroll for free to take Coursera’s Networks: Friends, Money, and Bytes, taught by a Princeton professor.

MOOCs could be adapted all the way down to middle and elementary schools. Fordham’s Checker Finn suggests that elite K-12 schools, such as Dalton and Andover, could dive into the MOOC market by developing courses for younger students. Sure, you’d still need a teacher to facilitate learning and manage the classroom—but schools may not need a teacher in the traditional sense. We are already seeing this in K-12 in models like Rocket Ship and Carpe Diem.

Yes, there are a plentitude of questions for Ohio’s policymakers to ponder in advance of wholesale (or even small-to moderate-scale) adoption of the MOOC model of education—whether for higher education or K-12 education. Who is accountable for quality and who ensures the kids actually learn? How is credit granted for taking these courses—and how can schools verify that the course was, in fact, completed? How does funding work for free courses? Who sets prices?

In recent blog posts, economists Gary Becker and Richard Posner both suggest that the MOOCs have the potential to revolutionize education, and the costs associated with it. So, while there are many open questions and push-back from groups with an interest in sustaining the traditional models of education, MOOCs are very likely the next giant leap forward in improving and democratizing education. Wikipedia put Encyclopedia Britannica out of business—as did iTunes end the age of compact discs. Both innovations, most would agree, have vastly improved and increased access to education and entertainment material. Might MOOCs (or whatever evolution of MOOCs eventually survives) end the age of the traditional classroom and school?

Our annual analysis of Ohio’s public school performance data has been released, in full (parts and parcel were released in October). Using publically available data from the Ohio Department of Education’s preliminary 2011-12 Report Card data set, released in October, along with several other sets of data, we examine how schools—traditional public school districts and charter schools—do across the Buckeye State. The report especially focuses on public school performance in four of Ohio’s major cities: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton.

The report includes ten-year trend data on student enrollment and proficiency rates, academic performance results for 2011-12, and a projection of proficiency rates when the Common Core arrives in 2014-15. In short, this report compiles fresh information for policy makers, educators, and parents about how well schools are serving youngsters across Ohio.

To access the report, click on the image below.

Looking for a stocking stuffer for that finicky ed-reformer in your family? Look no further than our collection of publications from 2012. This year’s research reports touched on timely and relevant topics for the Buckeye State such as teacher compensation, the implementation of the Common Core academic standards, student mobility, charter school governance, and special education. Check out our publications below and on our website.  

The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the Buckeye State – by Nelson Smith

Is it time for Ohio to take bolder steps toward turning around its most troubled schools and districts? If so, what might the alternatives look like? In looking for alternatives to simply doing more of the same, Ohio policymakers are looking to the experiences of other states. Among the boldest and most interesting of these is Louisiana’s Recovery School District (RSD), which is accomplishing both significant gains in student achievement and consequential impacts on district-level standards. In this recent report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute author Nelson Smith ask if and how the RSD concept might be a model for Ohio.

Teacher Compensation Based on Effectiveness: The Harrison (CO) School District's Pay-for-Performance Plan – by F. Mike Miles and Ellen Belcher

This report, authored by Superintendent Mike Miles, takes a detailed look at the Harrison (CO) School District 2's Pay-for-Performance Plan. The Harrison Plan confronted the dual challenges of defining an effective teacher and identifying all the things that demonstrate her effectiveness. This how-to guide is meant to serve as a tool and model for Ohio’s school districts.

Future Shock: Early Common Core implementation lessons from Ohio – by Ellen Belcher

With the 2014-15 Common-Core transition looming, we wondered: How are Ohio’s educators preparing themselves for this big change? Who is doing this work and what can other schools and districts learn from the early adopters? What are lessons, hopes, and fears facing those on the frontlines who have to lead Ohio’s embrace of significantly more rigorous academic standards?

Applying Systems Thinking to Improve Special Education in Ohio – by Nathan Levenson

Special education is a “tough nut to crack.” As it stands now, special education is far too compliance-driven, expensive, siloed, and opaque. This paper, written by Harvard MBA and former district superintendent Nathan Levenson, calls for system-wide reform in special education. Levenson uses systems thinking to provide common-sense ideas for saving money while also improving the educational services given to Ohio’s 275,000 students with special needs.

Student Nomads: Mobility in Ohio's Schools - with Community Research Partners

Student mobility – a non-promotional change of schools—happens more frequently in the Buckeye State that people generally appreciate or understand. To conduct this research, Fordham partnered with Community Research Partners and 10 other funders. We analyzed over 5 million student records to depict the magnitude and patterns of mobility our home state. We dive deep into five metro areas to examine closely how students move within districts, between districts, and from charter to traditional public schools. We encourage readers to dig into the data, and consider their implications: Should public policies try to slow student mobility? Encourage it? Or make policies better attuned to it?

Moving Up: Fordham's 2011-12 Sponsorship Accountability Report

Moving Up is the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's charter school sponsorship accountability report for 2011-12. Through it, we hope to help readers understand the complexities of charter schools and better appreciate the hard work of the teachers, school leaders, and board members who serve not only the schools we sponsor but also the schools around the state and nation that are working to make a difference in the lives of children. This year's report features an in-depth look at the struggles of two Fordham-sponsored schools in Dayton; it is researched and written by former Dayton Daily News reporter and editor Ellen Belcher.