The goal of No Child Left Behind is clear from its title, but hundreds of Ohio students with special needs would be left in the dust if at least one state legislator and the head of America's largest teacher union have their way.
The goal of No Child Left Behind is clear from its title, but hundreds of Ohio students with special needs would be left in the dust if at least one state legislator and the head of America's largest teacher union have their way. They would return to the days when the federal government spent billions of taxpayer dollars without seeming to care if students get shuffled through schools without learning the basics. Rep. Rep. Larry Wolpert R-Hilliard introduced a bill in 2005 (HB 411) that would reverse Ohio legislation that builds on NCLB by tagging school districts with lower report card ratings for leaving behind certain populations of students (i.e., African American, special needs students, etc.). Separately, while speaking at an education conference at Central State University, National Education Association President Reg Weaver criticized NCLB on grounds of unfairness. In particular, he criticized the law for expecting special education students to pass the same tests as other kids. Parents of special needs children, however, overwhelmingly favor more mainstreaming, not less. As former Education Secretary Rod Paige explains"...The new law (NCLB) says that we as a nation will not tolerate schools that practice the soft bigotry of low expectations."
Ohio's neediest kids are making progress. According to the Ohio Department of Education, over the past five years there has been a 27 percent statewide increase in the number of fourth grade African American students who pass the reading proficiency test and a 19 percent increase in the number of disabled youngsters who pass it.
Now is not the time to start backtracking.
Relevant Reading:
"Teachers' union boss rips federal school law," by Scott Elliot, Dayton Daily News
The debate over teaching evolution in schools, which has been going on in America at least since the famous Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925, burst onto the front pages of Ohio newspapers in early January. What's it all about? And where does Fordham stand? Read on.
Let's start with a little background. In 2001, the Ohio Department of Education updated the state's science standards. When a draft came before the State Board of Education in January 2002, several members derided it for only including evolution and omitting any mention of so-called "intelligent design." Those Board members had allies in the Ohio General Assembly who introduced bills in both the House and the Senate that would, in effect, force the board to approve standards that would present both sides of the debate (regardless of the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of evolution). Those bills were killed, however, when the Speaker announced that any decision regarding science standards should be left to the State Board of Education.
The State Board picked up the ball and hosted a panel of experts, in front of an audience of 1,000, which included such heavy hitters from the world of science as the late Stephen Jay Gould. The Board eventually decided to adopt standards that do not question evolution (or promote intelligent design) but, in a political compromise, it also directed the Department of Education to draft an optional lesson plan that includes such elements.
In 2004, the State Board approved that lesson plan. Teachers are not mandated to teach it, but questions about it could show up on the 10th grade Ohio Graduation Test.
The debate was reignited in recent weeks when a federal judge struck down, on "establishment of religion" grounds, a local school board resolution in Pennsylvania that required a skeptical teaching of evolution and promoted the ideas of intelligent design. Fearing a costly lawsuit, some on the Ohio State Board wanted to reconsider its 2004 decision. The issue was put to a vote again-but by a 9-8 margin the Board maintained its earlier decision.
During that debate, some people pointed to Fordham's recent evaluation of state science standards as evidence that the lesson plan must be kosher. In fact, our reviewers examined only the official science standards of every state. Though verbose, Ohio's standards earned a respectable "B." Their straight-up handling of evolution-in the standards themselves-was lauded by our reviewers. The contentious lesson plan, to repeat, is not part of the actual standards.
This misrepresentation of Fordham's view of that anti-evolution lesson plan understandably drew the ire of our reviewers, serious scientists all. Dr. Paul Gross, the lead author of our report and one of America's foremost biologists, along with his co-authors, excoriated the State Board's decision to retain the lesson plan, noting to "To devote scores of pages in the official standards to the principles of good science, and then to teach bad or pseudo-science in the classroom, is to defeat the very purpose of standards. If creationism-driven arguments become an authorized extension of Ohio's K-12 science standards, then the standards will deserve a failing grade."
Fordham shares the scientists' view that this "lesson plan" is inappropriate, unscientific, and raises the same problems (of religion creeping into the science curriculum) as the Dover resolution. At the same time, we recognize that it is not, technically, a part of Ohio's science standards. Therefore we will not change Ohio's grade.
Recently in the news:
"An ounce of prevention," by Columbus Dispatch, January 10, 2006
"Here come the lawyers," by Akron Beacon-Journal, January 10, 2006
"Students will continue to debate merits of evolution," by Scott Stephens, Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 11, 2006
"In 9-8 vote, state panel retains science rules," by Catherine Candisky, Columbus Dispatch, January 11, 2006
"Biology curriculum foes want to resume debate," by Catherine Candisky, Columbus Dispatch, January 12, 2006
"School board begging for court battles," by Dayton Daily News, January 13, 2006
"Ohio may lose science grade," by Scott Elliott, Dayton Daily News, January 17, 2006
"Intelligent design course canceled," by Juliana Barbassa, Associated Press, January 18, 2006
"Intelligent design not science, Vatican newspaper says," by Associated Press, January 19, 2006
"Witnesses badgered at science meeting," by Catherine Candisky, Columbus Dispatch, January 20, 2006
In a new policy brief released by the Buckeye Institute, we analyzed the changes in student passing rates on Ohio Proficiency Tests (OPT) made by traditional and charter schools in the Big Eight urban districts between 2002 and 2004. Using a statistical analysis that controlled for the demographic characteristics of race and income, our study found that:
This kind of analysis gets beyond the over-simplified pabulum that is usually produced when test scores are released. There are two questions to ask: Who is making improvements in the achievement levels of their students, and what is a fair sample to compare charter school results to? We believe that proper answers to those questions oblige one to examine relative gains, not just absolute scores, and we believe charter schools should be compared to those schools they compete with directly, in this case the Big Eight urban districts.
When comparing Ohio charter school gains to those of their district-run counterparts in similar geographic and socio-economic environments, we find that they outperform their peers in 6 of 11 categories and do as well in the other five. This suggests that the current legislative cap on charter schools serves mainly to deny students in poor performing schools the chance to get a better education. It also shows that charter schools are viable alternatives to an unsatisfactory education status quo.
To get a copy of this new report, please visit http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/.
Matthew Carr is a policy analyst at the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions in Columbus. Samuel R. Staley is a senior fellow at the Buckeye Institute and director of urban and land use policy at the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles.
The Akron Beacon Journal ran an article on January 21st, subsequently picked up by many of the state's newspapers, that misleadingly suggests that Ohio's community school funding system harms traditional school districts and worsens inter-district inequities. This is inaccurate. When children exit for charter schools, Ohio's funding system actually leaves more money per pupil in district coffers for their remaining students.
Consider the example of Cincinnati, which was cited in the Beacon Journal story. According to the paper's numbers, if there were no charter schools, the district would have 39,999 students and $298 million in combined state and local revenues - $7,450 per student. With charter schools, the district has 33,000 pupils and $253.3 million in combined state and local revenue - $7,676 per student. And what about inter-district inequity? There might be a constitutional issue if the charter funding mechanism somehow placed more of a burden on low-wealth districts, but the opposite seems to be occurring. That seems like a good thing for equity, not a bad thing.
Lurking behind all of this is the fact that community schools are greatly underfunded relative to district schools. Again using the Beacon Journal example, Cincinnati district schools receive $7,676 per child in combined revenues, while Cincinnati's community schools only get the $6,382 the state sends them. They receive no local money. It's the community schools, not the district schools, that really lose out.
The goal of No Child Left Behind is clear from its title, but hundreds of Ohio students with special needs would be left in the dust if at least one state legislator and the head of America's largest teacher union have their way. They would return to the days when the federal government spent billions of taxpayer dollars without seeming to care if students get shuffled through schools without learning the basics. Rep. Rep. Larry Wolpert R-Hilliard introduced a bill in 2005 (HB 411) that would reverse Ohio legislation that builds on NCLB by tagging school districts with lower report card ratings for leaving behind certain populations of students (i.e., African American, special needs students, etc.). Separately, while speaking at an education conference at Central State University, National Education Association President Reg Weaver criticized NCLB on grounds of unfairness. In particular, he criticized the law for expecting special education students to pass the same tests as other kids. Parents of special needs children, however, overwhelmingly favor more mainstreaming, not less. As former Education Secretary Rod Paige explains"...The new law (NCLB) says that we as a nation will not tolerate schools that practice the soft bigotry of low expectations."
Ohio's neediest kids are making progress. According to the Ohio Department of Education, over the past five years there has been a 27 percent statewide increase in the number of fourth grade African American students who pass the reading proficiency test and a 19 percent increase in the number of disabled youngsters who pass it.
Now is not the time to start backtracking.
Relevant Reading:
"Teachers' union boss rips federal school law," by Scott Elliot, Dayton Daily News
