The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is on the hook for a potential payout of tens of millions of dollars to school districts whose students opted to attend charter schools unless the Ohio Supreme Court rules on behalf of the state.
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is on the hook for a potential payout of tens of millions of dollars to school districts whose students opted to attend charter schools unless the Ohio Supreme Court rules on behalf of the state. The State Board of Education has until May 12 to appeal to the high court the question of whether the Cincinnati Public Schools or the charter schools within its borders should report how many students are enrolled in those charter schools.
Big bucks ride on the answer. While, Cincinnati stands to gain an extra $4.6 million (here), if the decision of lower courts stands, the department could be liable for an extra $50 million statewide. In Dayton schools could be looking at a $14 million state check, maybe more (here).
A spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann said no decision on an appeal has been made.
Cincinnati Public Schools sued the state board when ODE started using charter-school numbers instead of district numbers to tote up the amount of money the district should receive. When a child transfers from a Cincinnati district school to a charter, his or her state funds follow to the charter school. Cincinnati district officials contend there were fewer students in charter schools than the charters were reporting and that the district was short-changed. The suit covers counts made from 2005 to 2007.
Lower courts (most recently on March 28) ruled in favor of Cincinnati Public Schools, agreeing that the law doesn't allow the state to base per-pupil payments on figures that come from charter schools. The state, however, argues a change in state law last year allows it to use numbers provided directly by charter schools. Because districts receive state funds based on the number of students they serve, an accurate count in both traditional district schools and public charter schools is vital. Should the department lose its appeal to the Supreme Court, it's unclear where it would come up with $50 million because it already has had to slash as much as $100 million from its spending to help balance the state budget. If the department loses, there is the possibility it could go after some charter schools for the money.
This is all quite fascinating in light of Dann's discussion April 16 in Columbus with the Federalist Society about potential conflicts of interest because of the attorney general's role as counsel for all state agencies (which he played off as inter-office competition that benefits the greater good), not to mention the move by his office against charters based on the charitable trust law. Specifically, he's suing charter schools, yet he is the ultimate decision-maker on whether to appeal a potential $50 million dollar judgment against them.
Nebraska's governor this month signed into law a bill requiring the state to begin administering statewide, uniform assessments to measure students' academic progress. Nebraska's current system (STARS-School-based, Teacher-led Assessment and Reporting System) allows each of the state's 500-plus districts to design its own local assessments; which can include a portfolio of teacher classroom assessments, district tests, a state writing test, and a nationally standardized test. (See Gadfly's earlier report on STARS here.) Last summer, the legislature approved adding statewide standardized tests in reading and math but many lawmakers were unhappy with the state education department's attempt to merge those tests with the local assessments.
Under the new legislation, schools may still retain local assessments as an additional lens through which to monitor academic progress but the local assessments won't be valid for state and federal accountability requirements. Supporters of the change say that teachers will no longer be burdened by the complex upward reporting required of STARS. Critics are concerned that statewide assessment will force schools to narrow the curriculum and focus only on those areas tested.
The strongest advocate of Nebraska's local assessments has been the state's education commissioner, Douglas D. Christensen, who said in Education Week of the move to statewide testing, "I see nothing positive in terms of good public policy or good education policy in state testing" (here). A few days before the legislation passed, Christensen announced his resignation effective this summer.
Another vocal supporter of STARS is George Wood, principal of Federal Hocking Middle and High School in Amesville, Ohio, and executive director of the Forum for Education and Democracy. Wood authored Governor Ted Strickland's K-12 education transition report. In it he suggested Ohio rethink "assessment tools so that they are more comprehensive and not as reliant upon a single test, high stakes, and standardized measures" (here). He said "the possibility for this work has been opened up by the U.S. Department of Education's approval of Nebraska's assessment system which does not rely on a single, statewide test."
In truth, however, Nebraska's STARS was never deemed compliant with federal accountability requirements (here).
Two factors appear key to Nebraska's decision to adopt statewide testing. First, a common, statewide assessment will increase accountability as school performance can be compared across the state. Second, and more important, uniform tests will help shed light on achievement gaps and underserved student populations as Nebraska's demographics change and educators work to raise lagging achievement of poor and minority students.
Both the House of Representatives and State Board of Education took a look this month at Ohio's obscure and antiquated mechanisms for financing the education of students who have difficulty speaking and writing English.
The House education committee held a special hearing last week about the financial challenges of educating these children, who are dubbed under state and federal laws as limited English proficient (LEP). The hearing was requested by State Representative Kevin Bacon, of Westerville. Last year, there were more than 28,000 LEP students identified in Ohio, up from about 9,000 students just 10 years ago. By law, schools must provide a full academic program to LEP students along with additional assistance to help them learn English. Most schools provide these services with little extra funding.
Tom Ash, of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, explained the limitations of the two current sources of funding for serving LEP students. Federal Title III dollars are available on a per-pupil basis but this funding amounts to just $206 per student this year. The state provides some dollars for LEP students through its Poverty Based Assistance (PBA) program, but the eligibility parameters preclude most schools from receiving the money.
To receive state LEP funding, a school must first be eligible for PBA and have an English-challenged population equal to at least 2 percent of the student population. However, because the state uses the fiscal year 2003 count of LEP students in making that determination, only 11 districts in Ohio are eligible for the funding while at least 300 districts now serve LEP students.
Westerville City Schools, located in Bacon's district, serves about 1,200 LEP students who speak 82 different languages, according to district LEP coordinator Bev Good. The district is not eligible for state LEP funds and must tap other sources to finance the screening center, resource rooms, and tutoring programs it uses to help children learn English.
State funding is further limited because it is phased in at 70 percent, with no statutory mandate for an increase, and is funded on a sliding scale. Ash suggested lawmakers add a funding weight for LEP students, as is done in New Mexico, and consider a limit on how long a child could receive the funding.
Earlier this month the State Board of Education's school-funding subcommittee discussed weighting funds for different student characteristics, including limited English proficiency, and also heard about the limitations and problems with current LEP funding. While the subcommittee has not yet made recommendations, Ohio Department of Education staffers have put forth ideas for the group to consider. Among them: weight LEP status the same as the category one special education weight, identify LEP students for funding the same way they are identified for the local report card, limit how long a student may receive state LEP funding, and apply the state share percentage to the weight.
Bacon hopes the legislature will address LEP funding in the next state budget. The state board's school-funding recommendations are expected this summer after the group's June retreat. Gadfly would like to remind readers to visit our recent report Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy, and Portability to Ohio School Finance as it lays out a framework that would help address the challenges of getting funding to the children who need, including those learning English (here).
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is on the hook for a potential payout of tens of millions of dollars to school districts whose students opted to attend charter schools unless the Ohio Supreme Court rules on behalf of the state. The State Board of Education has until May 12 to appeal to the high court the question of whether the Cincinnati Public Schools or the charter schools within its borders should report how many students are enrolled in those charter schools.
Big bucks ride on the answer. While, Cincinnati stands to gain an extra $4.6 million (here), if the decision of lower courts stands, the department could be liable for an extra $50 million statewide. In Dayton schools could be looking at a $14 million state check, maybe more (here).
A spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann said no decision on an appeal has been made.
Cincinnati Public Schools sued the state board when ODE started using charter-school numbers instead of district numbers to tote up the amount of money the district should receive. When a child transfers from a Cincinnati district school to a charter, his or her state funds follow to the charter school. Cincinnati district officials contend there were fewer students in charter schools than the charters were reporting and that the district was short-changed. The suit covers counts made from 2005 to 2007.
Lower courts (most recently on March 28) ruled in favor of Cincinnati Public Schools, agreeing that the law doesn't allow the state to base per-pupil payments on figures that come from charter schools. The state, however, argues a change in state law last year allows it to use numbers provided directly by charter schools. Because districts receive state funds based on the number of students they serve, an accurate count in both traditional district schools and public charter schools is vital. Should the department lose its appeal to the Supreme Court, it's unclear where it would come up with $50 million because it already has had to slash as much as $100 million from its spending to help balance the state budget. If the department loses, there is the possibility it could go after some charter schools for the money.
This is all quite fascinating in light of Dann's discussion April 16 in Columbus with the Federalist Society about potential conflicts of interest because of the attorney general's role as counsel for all state agencies (which he played off as inter-office competition that benefits the greater good), not to mention the move by his office against charters based on the charitable trust law. Specifically, he's suing charter schools, yet he is the ultimate decision-maker on whether to appeal a potential $50 million dollar judgment against them.
Nebraska's governor this month signed into law a bill requiring the state to begin administering statewide, uniform assessments to measure students' academic progress. Nebraska's current system (STARS-School-based, Teacher-led Assessment and Reporting System) allows each of the state's 500-plus districts to design its own local assessments; which can include a portfolio of teacher classroom assessments, district tests, a state writing test, and a nationally standardized test. (See Gadfly's earlier report on STARS here.) Last summer, the legislature approved adding statewide standardized tests in reading and math but many lawmakers were unhappy with the state education department's attempt to merge those tests with the local assessments.
Under the new legislation, schools may still retain local assessments as an additional lens through which to monitor academic progress but the local assessments won't be valid for state and federal accountability requirements. Supporters of the change say that teachers will no longer be burdened by the complex upward reporting required of STARS. Critics are concerned that statewide assessment will force schools to narrow the curriculum and focus only on those areas tested.
The strongest advocate of Nebraska's local assessments has been the state's education commissioner, Douglas D. Christensen, who said in Education Week of the move to statewide testing, "I see nothing positive in terms of good public policy or good education policy in state testing" (here). A few days before the legislation passed, Christensen announced his resignation effective this summer.
Another vocal supporter of STARS is George Wood, principal of Federal Hocking Middle and High School in Amesville, Ohio, and executive director of the Forum for Education and Democracy. Wood authored Governor Ted Strickland's K-12 education transition report. In it he suggested Ohio rethink "assessment tools so that they are more comprehensive and not as reliant upon a single test, high stakes, and standardized measures" (here). He said "the possibility for this work has been opened up by the U.S. Department of Education's approval of Nebraska's assessment system which does not rely on a single, statewide test."
In truth, however, Nebraska's STARS was never deemed compliant with federal accountability requirements (here).
Two factors appear key to Nebraska's decision to adopt statewide testing. First, a common, statewide assessment will increase accountability as school performance can be compared across the state. Second, and more important, uniform tests will help shed light on achievement gaps and underserved student populations as Nebraska's demographics change and educators work to raise lagging achievement of poor and minority students.
