Gov. Ted Strickland's hot-off-the-presses education-reform plan is nothing if not audacious. Gutsy, even, in its way, and wider-ranging than most people expected, it tackles a multitude of topics-sometimes in incompatible and contradictory ways-and picks up on dozens of ideas, some of them sound.
Gov. Ted Strickland's hot-off-the-presses education-reform plan is nothing if not audacious. Gutsy, even, in its way, and wider-ranging than most people expected, it tackles a multitude of topics-sometimes in incompatible and contradictory ways-and picks up on dozens of ideas, some of them sound. It is also sure to be expensive, as others have already pointed out (see here).
Some of the promising ideas include moving away from the current statewide high-school graduation test toward the ACT and some combination of end-of-course exams; improving teacher quality (in part by shifting tenure decisions from three to nine years); lengthening the school year; making funding more transparent; and encouraging innovations such as STEM programs and "early college" academies.
Strickland certainly deserves credit for raising education high on Ohio's policy agenda. On balance, though, his plan raises at least three serious concerns that legislators and others should ponder long and hard.
First, what exactly will Ohio use for academic standards for its students, schools, and teachers, and how exactly will the state hold them to account for their results? Getting the standards right-specifying the knowledge and skills that teachers should teach and children should learn-is at the heart of just about everything else that matters in K-12 education, at least in terms of state policy. Here, unfortunately, the governor seems to have thrown into the hopper just about every trendy education notion that he and his advisers have ever encountered. He yearns for standards that incorporate both solid academic content and the development of trendy skills (e.g., media savvy and interpersonal skills) that are essentially devoid of content. According to the D.C.-based Common Core, "No one who knows a lick about curriculum would put these two ideas together," (see here).
This mishmash will make it harder for teachers who are already struggling to help children master the basic skills and knowledge they need for a shot at success, and will perplex them as to where, exactly, to focus their instructional energies. Not a good thing for kids-or for Ohio's future. In 2007, only 36 percent of Buckeye eighth graders were rated "proficient" in reading on the National Assessment of Education Progress. The math results were similar. That means thousands of young Ohioans, reaching the threshold of high school, haven't yet mastered the ability to read critically or do basic computations, let alone grasp the essentials of science, history, civics, etc. And the data are far bleaker for poor and minority youngsters. Is this really a good time for Ohio to turn its schools and educators away from a single-minded focus on developing a solid educational foundation for all? Are 18 year olds with great interpersonal skills who can barely read what 21st Century universities and employers really seek?
Second, the so-called "Evidence-Based Model" that is central to Strickland's school funding plan is based on questionable evidence and dubious theory, derived from the work of two school finance "experts" who have grown prosperous by helping litigators talk judges into ordering more money for public education. They claim to present with scientific certainty exactly what needs to be done to raise every child in a state to academic proficiency and how much this will cost. Unfortunately, other experts-with equal or stronger credentials-say that such models rest on sand. Stanford economist Eric Hanushek, for example, writes that they're "not just inaccurate. They are generally unscientific. They do not provide reliable and unbiased estimates of the necessary costs. In a variety of cases, they cannot be replicated by others. And they obfuscate the fact that they are unlikely to provide a path to the desired outcome results.... Pity the poor states," he warns, "that actually implement [such plans]. They are sure to be disappointed by the results, and most taxpayers (those who do not work for the schools) will be noticeably poorer" (see here).
Third, Ohio's charter schools certainly need attention and the governor has a good idea or two here-making all charter "sponsors" accountable, for example-but while purporting to cure this patient he would actually deprive it of vital limbs and organs. His budget would severely worsen the funding inequities between charter and district schools. And he would heavily increase the regulatory burden on all charters, good, bad, and indifferent. In barring "for profit" school operators, he again fails to distinguish between shady managers of squalid schools and outstanding providers of quality education. That both may be profit-seeking is beside the point.
Put it all together and it's hard to picture any high-octane charter operator wanting to work in Ohio. They will instead go to states that welcome and support them. This would be a blow for needy children and families. For example, the top-performing elementary school in Dayton in 2008, the Pathway School of Discovery, is a charter school operated by the National Heritage Academies. Does it make sense to toss 570 children out of an "Effective" rated school (the only elementary school in Dayton so designated) solely because it is operated by a for-profit company?
That Gov. Strickland is serious about investing in the state's human capital, while also expecting more from the state's schools, its teachers, and its children, is a fine thing. But his good ideas are matched if not outnumbered by flabby notions, shaky evidence, and sometimes downright harmful nostrums. The former deserve bipartisan support. The latter demand close scrutiny and serious reconsideration.
Alternative energy, the economy, and STEM education are the three top science-and-technology-related worries according to an Ohio Academy of Science survey of state and local public officials, including those in the governor's office (see here).
Energy use, energy production, and related environmental issues; the aging of baby boomers; and transportation also were high priorities cited by public officials.
The 2009 worries are different from those listed when the academy last conducted the survey in 2000. Then, biotechnology, cancer prevention, and education reform were chief concerns. Biotechnology and cancer prevention were still listed in the latest survey but they were well down the list.
STEM education was the third-most cited concern. The alignment of education with economic development, education reform, critical thinking skills, K-12 science education, and engineering education were among other education-related concerns cited.
The anonymous, mail-response survey was conducted between Dec. 17, 2008, and Jan. 12, 2009. The academy surveyed 81 public officials (a 9.5 percent survey response).
Alternative energy was cited 26 times compared with the economy and STEM education at 11 times each. When closely related topics were included, energy was listed as a concern 65 times compared with STEM education and other specific education issues 52 times and economic-related issues 19 times.
"The results of the 2009 survey are important because of leadership transitions at the local, state, and national levels and because of Ohio's scientific, technological, and educational challenges and opportunities in an unstable economy," said Lynn Elfner, the academy's chief executive officer.
Elfner said the results enable the academy to identify Ohio experts to advise Ohio lawmakers and government officials on the top issues. For example, the academy provided a roster of 64 alternative energy experts to the previous Ohio General Assembly.
Opinions are anonymous. Those surveyed include the governor, his staff, and his cabinet; members of the new Ohio General Assembly; Ohio's Congressional delegation; all county commissioners, coroners, health commissioners, and county engineers; the Ohio State Board of Education; and 50 mayors.
Each official received a checklist of more than 190 issues partially derived from previous surveys. They were asked to identify their own issues. Officials selected five or fewer issues.
Full survey results are available here.
In the last week, on Fordham Institute's Flypaper blog (see here), Terry Ryan blogged about front-loading compensation for new teachers; Emmy Partin discussed Gov. Strickland's "clarification" of his view toward charter schools; Kathryn Mullen Upton talked about figuring out what new teachers to hire now that it's time for schools to start that process; and Emmy Partin got down on what exactly "overhauling" a failing school really means.
Gov. Ted Strickland's hot-off-the-presses education-reform plan is nothing if not audacious. Gutsy, even, in its way, and wider-ranging than most people expected, it tackles a multitude of topics-sometimes in incompatible and contradictory ways-and picks up on dozens of ideas, some of them sound. It is also sure to be expensive, as others have already pointed out (see here).
Some of the promising ideas include moving away from the current statewide high-school graduation test toward the ACT and some combination of end-of-course exams; improving teacher quality (in part by shifting tenure decisions from three to nine years); lengthening the school year; making funding more transparent; and encouraging innovations such as STEM programs and "early college" academies.
Strickland certainly deserves credit for raising education high on Ohio's policy agenda. On balance, though, his plan raises at least three serious concerns that legislators and others should ponder long and hard.
First, what exactly will Ohio use for academic standards for its students, schools, and teachers, and how exactly will the state hold them to account for their results? Getting the standards right-specifying the knowledge and skills that teachers should teach and children should learn-is at the heart of just about everything else that matters in K-12 education, at least in terms of state policy. Here, unfortunately, the governor seems to have thrown into the hopper just about every trendy education notion that he and his advisers have ever encountered. He yearns for standards that incorporate both solid academic content and the development of trendy skills (e.g., media savvy and interpersonal skills) that are essentially devoid of content. According to the D.C.-based Common Core, "No one who knows a lick about curriculum would put these two ideas together," (see here).
This mishmash will make it harder for teachers who are already struggling to help children master the basic skills and knowledge they need for a shot at success, and will perplex them as to where, exactly, to focus their instructional energies. Not a good thing for kids-or for Ohio's future. In 2007, only 36 percent of Buckeye eighth graders were rated "proficient" in reading on the National Assessment of Education Progress. The math results were similar. That means thousands of young Ohioans, reaching the threshold of high school, haven't yet mastered the ability to read critically or do basic computations, let alone grasp the essentials of science, history, civics, etc. And the data are far bleaker for poor and minority youngsters. Is this really a good time for Ohio to turn its schools and educators away from a single-minded focus on developing a solid educational foundation for all? Are 18 year olds with great interpersonal skills who can barely read what 21st Century universities and employers really seek?
Second, the so-called "Evidence-Based Model" that is central to Strickland's school funding plan is based on questionable evidence and dubious theory, derived from the work of two school finance "experts" who have grown prosperous by helping litigators talk judges into ordering more money for public education. They claim to present with scientific certainty exactly what needs to be done to raise every child in a state to academic proficiency and how much this will cost. Unfortunately, other experts-with equal or stronger credentials-say that such models rest on sand. Stanford economist Eric Hanushek, for example, writes that they're "not just inaccurate. They are generally unscientific. They do not provide reliable and unbiased estimates of the necessary costs. In a variety of cases, they cannot be replicated by others. And they obfuscate the fact that they are unlikely to provide a path to the desired outcome results.... Pity the poor states," he warns, "that actually implement [such plans]. They are sure to be disappointed by the results, and most taxpayers (those who do not work for the schools) will be noticeably poorer" (see here).
Third, Ohio's charter schools certainly need attention and the governor has a good idea or two here-making all charter "sponsors" accountable, for example-but while purporting to cure this patient he would actually deprive it of vital limbs and organs. His budget would severely worsen the funding inequities between charter and district schools. And he would heavily increase the regulatory burden on all charters, good, bad, and indifferent. In barring "for profit" school operators, he again fails to distinguish between shady managers of squalid schools and outstanding providers of quality education. That both may be profit-seeking is beside the point.
Put it all together and it's hard to picture any high-octane charter operator wanting to work in Ohio. They will instead go to states that welcome and support them. This would be a blow for needy children and families. For example, the top-performing elementary school in Dayton in 2008, the Pathway School of Discovery, is a charter school operated by the National Heritage Academies. Does it make sense to toss 570 children out of an "Effective" rated school (the only elementary school in Dayton so designated) solely because it is operated by a for-profit company?
That Gov. Strickland is serious about investing in the state's human capital, while also expecting more from the state's schools, its teachers, and its children, is a fine thing. But his good ideas are matched if not outnumbered by flabby notions, shaky evidence, and sometimes downright harmful nostrums. The former deserve bipartisan support. The latter demand close scrutiny and serious reconsideration.
