As Dick Cheney and John Edwards squared off in their pre-election debate at Case Western in 2004, three billboards in Cleveland dared the moderator to ask the candidates why taxpayers "pay $1.5 billion to label our top schools failures." The billboards, a reference to grievances against No Child Left Behind (NCLB), were paid for by Communities for Quality Education--a group financed by th
As Dick Cheney and John Edwards squared off in their pre-election debate at Case Western in 2004, three billboards in Cleveland dared the moderator to ask the candidates why taxpayers "pay $1.5 billion to label our top schools failures." The billboards, a reference to grievances against No Child Left Behind (NCLB), were paid for by Communities for Quality Education--a group financed by the National Education Association (NEA).
This is just one example that Joe Williams details in his report of how the NEA subsidizes a host of organizations that "echo" the teacher union's criticisms of NCLB. From bankrolling advocacy groups and political organizations to funding union-friendly research, the NEA's efforts to sway public opinion of the law crisscross the country, Ohio included. For example, the nonprofit Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (which keeps tabs on Ohio) has commissioned numerous studies outlining "doomsday scenarios" for schools under NCLB, studies funded by the NEA and its affiliates.
The NEA rarely publicizes these relationships, nor does the press. The result is the appearance of many "impartial" voices united against NCLB--when, in fact, they are just echoes of the NEA's.
Is it working? Polls show opposition to the law has increased from 8 to 28 percent in just two years, while percentages favoring it have fallen from 40 to 36.
At least with this report, readers can "connect the dots" for themselves, provided they keep their pencils sharpened.
To read the report, click here.
Among charter school networks having a profound impact on low-income student achievement, one stands out. The Knowledge is Power Program, or KIPP.
Want proof? Eighty percent of its graduates go on to college--the national average for low-income students being just 20 percent. And on average, fifth graders who spend just one year at a KIPP school improve from the 38th to 68th percentile in math, and 27th to the 42nd percentile in reading on the Stanford Achievement Tests.
Ohioans have the opportunity to bring this high-powered school to the Buckeye State--but not unless current laws are changed.
With 52 schools nationwide, KIPP is looking to expand, seeking proposals from communities across the nation to open more. Our state’s charter cap, however, only allows charter school operators with proven track record of success that manage the “daily operations of a community school” to open here. KIPP doesn’t handle day-to-day operations. Instead, it pours its resources into training independent, highly qualified leaders and support staff who take on the task themselves.
And the school has the financial backing to do this. New KIPP schools come with hefty grants for start-up and professional development from the likes of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ($300,000 for high schools) and Walton Family Foundation ($400,000 for all new schools).
Ohio shouldn’t let this opportunity pass it by.
State policymakers should do what’s necessary to welcome KIPP to Ohio’s charter school community. If we are serious about closing achievement gaps in this state, we must embrace school models that yield results--even if it means tweaking our own laws so they can come in.
Learn more about KIPP here.
"KIPP Schools Shift Strategy for Scaling Up," by Eric Robelen, Education Week, April 12, 2006.
Critics of voucher programs are positively swooning over a recent report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which finds that public school students in 4th and 8th grades score as well or better than their private-school peers.
Based on results from the 2005 NAEP, the findings surprised many because average scores have historically shown private-school students performing far better. But adjust for student characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, and English language proficiency, and the gap between public and private almost disappears.
Fourth graders in both systems scored roughly the same in reading. In math, fourth graders in private schools actually did worse than public school students--by 4.5 points. Eighth graders in private schools still performed better in reading by 7.3 points, but ran neck-and-neck with public school students in math.
Teacher unions wasted no time embracing the study. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) web log cited the data as proof that vouchers programs, which give parents public dollars to send their kids to private schools, are a waste of taxpayer money. Ohio Federation of Teachers president Tom Mooney likewise stated, "The point is not to transfer a handful of students from public to private schools…This is further proof that that’s a dead end."
Hyperbole aside, the NCES’s report never addresses the effectiveness of voucher programs. As a broad comparison of public and private schools, it does not examine how voucher recipients perform academically after transferring to a private school. Studies that have (including those recently discussed in John Tierney’s New York Times column) actually reveal improved test scores for voucher recipients.
Yet the report does raise important issues for voucher programs like Ohio’s EdChoice initiative.
The most critical is that all schools that receive taxpayer funding--public or private--should be held accountable for their performance. Private schools in Ohio must administer the Ohio Achievement Tests to voucher recipients, but there is no penalty for schools if students perform poorly--or any formal evaluation of the overall program.
For the parents of the nearly 2,300 students receiving vouchers under Ohio’s EdChoice program, the report underscores the importance of making good choices. In Dayton, parents have My School Chooser, a user-friendly guide created by GreatSchools.net, which lists performance data and information for the city’s many traditional public, charter, and private schools. It also provides a checklist of key criteria for selecting the right school.
In the coming weeks NCES will release its comparison of charter and traditional public school performance. Should the results be mixed, critics will surely decry charter schools as miserable failures, too.
Don’t believe it. If schools cannot provide students an adequate education, parents deserve the option to look elsewhere. With the EdChoice program and a host of charter schools, Ohio’s parents can choose among viable options--not just hope and a prayer.
To read the NCES report, click here.
Check out the GreatSchools.net web site here .
"Republicans Propose National School Voucher Program," by Diana Jean Schemo, The New York Times, July 19, 2006.
"Spinning a Bad Report Card," by John Tierney, The New York Times, July 18, 2006. (subscription required)
"Private Schools Not Inherently Better, National Study Suggests," by Jennifer Smith Richards, The Columbus Dispatch, July 18, 2006.
"Public Schools on Par With, Outperform Private Schools in Some Areas, Study Says," by Mary Ann Zehr, Education Week, July 18, 2006.
"Public vs. Private " NCLBlog, American Federation of Teachers, July 15, 2006.
While the philanthropy world was still reeling from Investor Warren Buffett's announcement to give the bulk of his fortune-$37 billion-to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the foundation's staff and a group of education leaders met in Seattle on July 17 and 18 for the foundation's EDU Summer Conference. On the agenda was the future of the Gates' Foundation's education program.
Should Ohioans be interested?
You bet. The Gates Foundation has already invested millions in Ohio to improve high school graduation rates and school quality by promoting the "three R's"--rigor, relevance, and relationships. Some of the foundation's work in Ohio include:
The foundation is also committed to preparing students for the demands of college and the workplace. Thus, it has become major backers of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) and Governor Taft's Ohio's Core Curriculum proposal.
So where does the foundation go from here?
After reflecting on some decidedly mixed results and a litany of studies evaluating its efforts (both detailed in a recent Business Week cover story), the foundation has emerged with a sharper focus. While it will continue to provide significant support to school reform initiatives, the foundation will center its efforts on what works--or at least what has a shot at working--before committing millions of dollars in support.
Ohioans should be encouraged. After all, we're already on the map.
"Bill Gates Gets Schooled," Business Week, June 26, 2006.
As Dick Cheney and John Edwards squared off in their pre-election debate at Case Western in 2004, three billboards in Cleveland dared the moderator to ask the candidates why taxpayers "pay $1.5 billion to label our top schools failures." The billboards, a reference to grievances against No Child Left Behind (NCLB), were paid for by Communities for Quality Education--a group financed by the National Education Association (NEA).
This is just one example that Joe Williams details in his report of how the NEA subsidizes a host of organizations that "echo" the teacher union's criticisms of NCLB. From bankrolling advocacy groups and political organizations to funding union-friendly research, the NEA's efforts to sway public opinion of the law crisscross the country, Ohio included. For example, the nonprofit Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (which keeps tabs on Ohio) has commissioned numerous studies outlining "doomsday scenarios" for schools under NCLB, studies funded by the NEA and its affiliates.
The NEA rarely publicizes these relationships, nor does the press. The result is the appearance of many "impartial" voices united against NCLB--when, in fact, they are just echoes of the NEA's.
Is it working? Polls show opposition to the law has increased from 8 to 28 percent in just two years, while percentages favoring it have fallen from 40 to 36.
At least with this report, readers can "connect the dots" for themselves, provided they keep their pencils sharpened.
To read the report, click here.
