Not since William Jennings Bryan halted the march of science by winning the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 have creationists had a more glorious day. On Monday, the Creation Museum opened its doors for business in northern Kentucky, with a stated mission of restoring the Bible to its "rightful authority" in society. An arm of AiG (Answers in Genesis) ministries, the Creation Museum aims to show once and for all that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and that dinosaurs and man walked together in the Garden of Eden. (Which may explain why Eve ate the forbidden fruit. When you've got a Deinonychus competing for your food supply, you take what you can get and don't ask questions.) Some educators worry what this could mean for the future of the Bluegrass State's science curriculum. Fear not, says an AiG spokesman. We're not "an activist group ... regarding ... getting materials into public schools." Instead, they'll settle for getting books such as Evolution Exposed: Your Answer Book for the Classroom--available for $15.99 in the museum gift shop--into visitors' hands. And let matters evolve from there. 

"Natural History, Bible-style," by Jane Lampman, Christian Science Monitor, May 24, 2007

David L. Kirp
Harvard University Press
Forthcoming, August 2007

The good folks at Harvard University Press are sinking a lot of energy and resources into promoting this defense of pre-school education. And why not? With the interest level in pre-K education rising, they stand to sell a lot of copies. But before you buy yours, be aware of what you're getting. First, Kirp, a respected policy analyst, is clearly convinced that pre-K education for all is a policy idea whose time has come. He makes this case in the book's first four chapters by examining the research to date on this topic (from neuroscience to the Perry study, and from economic analyses to case studies). Though he does a good job surveying what's been done, he has little patience for critics of that research, clumping them as conservative political ideologues looking to preempt another big-government program. To be fair, Kirp doesn't believe all is right in the pre-K world--he's especially critical of child care programs masquerading as pre-K programs--but skeptics of universal pre-K reading this aren't likely to change their stripes. The second half of the book, however, will be of interest to anyone involved in education policy, and the pre-K battle in particular. Kirp has pieced together how foundations (Packard and Pew), politicians (Jim Hunt and Zell Miller), and states (Oklahoma and Georgia, among others) decided to take on this issue, how they launched their campaigns, where they succeeded and where they failed. It's an intelligent, fairly balanced look at the inside-world of public policy that will serve as a guide for those in the business, and an eye-opener for those on the outside who think that politics don't matter. The book won't be out until August, but you can still pack it into your beach reading bag then. This well-written policy/journalism work deserves its spot--if only for the final four chapters. Read more about it here.

Joanne Jacobs
Lexington Institute
May 29, 2007

A third of California's elementary students are classified as English Learners (ELs) and, by the rosiest estimate, only 60 percent of them will be reclassified as English proficient by seventh grade. The remaining 40 percent, according to Joanne Jacobs, will remain at serious risk of "falling behind in school or failing to master the skills needed for success in middle and high school." The reason for this, Jacobs suggests, is not necessarily that they haven't mastered English, but that their district has continued to classify them as ELs regardless of their English skills, putting them on a track which deprives them of educational opportunities available to their "proficient" peers. Blame here lies with the classification system, as well as the unintended consequences of a well-meaning law. California funds ELs 13 percent higher than non-EL students, but once they master English the extra funding goes away. Thus, districts have an incentive to continue classifying students as ELs even when they're not. Also problematic is the lack of statewide consistency in English proficiency cut-off scores; some districts set the bar too high, keeping students "on an ‘EL track' that leads nowhere." Standardizing the California English Language Development Test and California Standards Test cut-scores, Jacobs argues, would help clarify what level of English skill should be expected from ELs. All good points, but this paper's focus on the pitfalls of EL classification practices leaves one wondering how much ELs are actually learning. Jacobs takes it for granted that they're doing better than their EL labels would suggest, but presumably that question is still up for debate. The paper is available here.

From time to time, we feature analysis of education reform issues in other states--in this case, Michigan. Below, James Goenner and Don Cooper of the Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University, which authorizes (i.e., sponsors) 58 charters in the Great Lakes State, reveal that the charter school funding gap isn't just a problem for Ohio's charters.
___________________________________________________________

Central Michigan University's (CMU's) involvement with public charter schools began in 1994 when we became the first university in America to charter a school, expanding on a tradition of leadership that began in the late 1800s when CMU educated its first public school teachers.

CMU got involved because we believed charter schools would serve as a catalyst to advance public education and benefit all Michigan school children. Today, we are the largest university authorizer of charters in the country, chartering 58 schools that serve nearly 30,000 students.

After reading the groundbreaking report Charter School Funding: Inequity's Next Frontier, published by The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, we decided to examine the size of the funding gap between students who attend the public schools we charter and those attending conventional district schools. As the report rightly noted, the issue of equitable school funding has been debated and litigated for decades. Overall, progress has been made, yet there is no doubt that more can be done.

For years, funding equity advocates have rightly argued that all children have the right to a quality education. Appealing to Americans' fundamental belief in fairness and citing constitutional and civil rights provisions, advocates for equity were able to build a strong coalition of support. Sadly and ironically, as we transition from the era of school assignment to the new era of school choice, some who fought so hard and so long to overcome funding injustices find themselves working against equitable student funding for children whose parents have chosen to enroll them in charter schools.

The Gap in Operating Funds

To illustrate the funding gap that results from this inequity, we compared the standard "foundation allowance"--the operational funding that follows each Michigan student--for students who attend conventional district schools to those who choose to attend the public schools chartered by CMU.

The amount of public funding that follows a student in the form of the foundation allowance depends on the school district where the student lives. For the 2006-2007 school year, the foundation allowance ranges from a low of $7,085 to a high of $12,340 per student. However, for students who choose to attend a charter school, Michigan law caps their foundation allowance at $300 above the minimum foundation allowance of $7,085, regardless of how much the conventional school district where the charter school is located receives per student. 

This inequality results in students at nearly 70 percent of the schools chartered by CMU receiving less foundation funding for their education simply because their parents chose to enroll them in a charter school instead of having them assigned to the district school. In real dollars, this gap ranges from $25 to nearly $4,000 less in foundation allowance revenue per student for the public schools we charter. For example, if the Southfield Public Schools, a conventional school district located near Detroit, received the same per-pupil foundation allowance as the public schools we charter that are located in Southfield, Southfield Public Schools would receive about $37.6 million less foundation funding per year.

"Categoricals" and Other Revenue Sources

While the foundation allowance revenue is the primary funding source for Michigan's public schools, it is far from the only source. Public schools also receive additional state funding for selected programs like pre-school and adult education; for school breakfasts and lunches; for extra costs for educating at-risk and court-placed pupils; and for numerous other smaller programs targeted towards specific schools or student populations. Some of these programs include:

• "At-Risk" Funds. Michigan provides supplemental funding to schools to provide extra support services for "at-risk" students. However, this supplemental funding is equal to a percent of the foundation allowance for eligible students, rather than a flat per-pupil dollar amount. Because the foundation allowance for charter school students is capped, this results in "at-risk" students attending charters again getting shortchanged simply because their parents chose to enroll them in a charter school instead of having them assigned to the district school.

• Grants, Earmarks, and Special Programs. Like many state legislatures tend to do, the Michigan Legislature has created numerous special programs and grants for various conventional districts. Whether well-intentioned or politically motivated, these grants increase the inequities between conventional and charter schools by millions of dollars each year.   

In total, these and other state programs substantially widen the funding gap between conventional and charter schools. For example, in a 2006 report to the Michigan Legislature, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) calculated the total general fund revenue gap between all Michigan charters and the state-designated "host" school districts to be $2,612 per student in fiscal year 2005.

Also, unlike Michigan's conventional school districts, charter schools cannot levy local property taxes to pay for facilities or capital costs. Instead, charters are required to pay for facilities and capital from their operating revenue. When locally generated facilities funding is factored in, the gap grows even further: 

• Debt Retirement. Through their local taxing ability, conventional school districts throughout the state collected almost $1.5 billion last year to pay off debt for facilities and capital.

• "Sinking Fund" Revenues. Also through their local taxing ability, conventional districts collected a total of $124 million in "sinking fund" revenue--funds that are allocated for purchasing facilities in the future. 

Focused on Student Achievement

Even in light of these funding inequities--inequities that some have historically used to justify and excuse poor performance--the schools we charter are focusing their resources on helping all students learn. 

Results from the annual Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) tests continue to demonstrate progress. Fall 2006 MEAP tests showed that, as a group, students in schools chartered by CMU outperformed students in the host district comparison group established by MDE on all 27 tests administered to 3^rd through 8^th graders in all core academic subjects: math, English/language arts, science, and social studies.

In the transition from the era of school assignment to the era of school choice, there will be many obstacles to overcome. As we prepare to overcome these obstacles, it would be wise to remember the words of Hubert H. Humphrey, "You can always debate what you should have done. The question is what are you going to do?"

by James N. Goenner & Don Cooper

James N. Goenner is the Executive Director of the Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University in Mt. Pleasant, MI. Don Cooper is the Center's Special Advisor for State and Federal Policy. For further information about the authors or the Center, visit http://www.thecenterforcharters.org/.

Last week, Fordham and the FDR Group, a respected national survey research organization, released "Ohioans' Views on Education 2007"--a revealing look into the attitudes of Buckeye residents on a host of pressing education issues at the state and federal level. The findings suggest that Governor Strickland and those who share his education policy preferences are, for the most part, out of step with rank-and-file voters, taxpayers and parents.

Consider the divide on three core issues:

• Standards and Accountability. On the issue of accountability and testing--two fundamental elements of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act--Ohioans broadly support setting standards and holding students to them. That includes the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT). In spite of recent hand-wringing and protests by students and some parents over the stricter requirements to pass the OGT (see here), most Ohioans (66 percent) strongly favor it. Indeed, a full 89 percent of those favoring the OGT requirement would still support it even if it meant that their own child would be denied a diploma.

Yet Governor Strickland has cited NCLB's testing measures as one reason that, given the chance to relive history, he would vote against the federal bill (as a U.S. Representative in 2001, he supported it.) "I think the well-intentioned emphasis on standardized testing is presenting the danger of us trying to squeeze all students into a single mold, having a single outcome," Strickland noted. If that outcome is, at the very least, a set of basic skills, then the governor will find himself even further separated from many Ohioans, 43 percent of whom said that a diploma from their local public schools cannot guarantee that students have learned the basics.

• School Choice. The governor has been merciless in his criticism of charter schools and the state's EdChoice voucher program (even calling the latter "undemocratic"). His version of the biennial budget would have placed a moratorium on all new charters, crippled many existing ones, and completely eliminated vouchers (except in Cleveland) for parents seeking a way out of failing schools for their children. The governor's position has been bolstered by speeches and rallies (see here) hosted by teachers unions, school superintendents, and some House and Senate Democrats.

Yet Ohioans, when asked, remain supportive of both programs. Fifty-two percent of those surveyed were in favor of charters--a figure that jumps to 59 percent for large-city residents--and just 38 percent were opposed to them. As for new charter schools, 68 percent of Ohioans surveyed signaled support for opening more of them, so long as they are run by organizations with a proven track record. And 63 percent agreed that only the worst charters should be shuttered.

Buckeye residents were equally well disposed toward the EdChoice Scholarship program (with 57 percent in favor), which provides a $3,000 to $5,000 tuition voucher to parents seeking private options for children attending failing public schools. Fifty-five percent of those surveyed said that vouchers will force public schools to improve as a result of competition. When asked specifically about the governor's proposed elimination of the EdChoice program, a whopping 69 percent of Ohioans turned thumbs down. Three-fifths even favor making vouchers available to all children, regardless of a school's academic rating. The program is hardly "undemocratic" by these measures. In fact, Ohioans appear intuitively to support the concept of choice because it feels democratic to them. What's more democratic than the idea that all families should have access to high quality school choices? And who better to make these choices than parents?

• School funding. More money for schools is always a tricky issue in surveys because most citizens support it--as long as it doesn't mean raising their taxes. Ohioans are no different, as many recent levy failures reveal (see here). The FDR group found that 46 percent of Ohioans believe that funding for their district should increase even if it meant higher taxes. Seven out of ten think that any additional funding would "get lost along the way" instead of improving classroom instruction.

These concerns are largely absent from the rhetoric of advocates for a potentially bankrupting school funding amendment to the Ohio constitution (see here). The governor has so far voiced his opposition to such a "blank check" approach--though he hasn't ruled it out, either. Perhaps he should take the citizenry's pulse on this issue before tying his administration to the views of adult interest groups that crave the money they see for themselves on the other side of this ballot initiative.

Naturally, there are some education issues on which the views of Buckeye citizens and their governor overlap. Most notably, both favor expanded early-childhood education opportunities. Governor Strickland has also signaled an interest in pursuing a weighted student funding scheme, whereby per-pupil funding would follow the child to whatever school he or she attends. Presented with the idea, 63 percent of Ohioans favor it. And in recent remarks at "Beyond Tinkering"--a seminar on the future of Ohio's education system (see below), the governor advocated rethinking the school day and calendar to include extended learning time. The FDR group found that 53 percent of Ohioans also support lengthening the school day/year.

Yet when it comes to key reform efforts--such as maintaining rigorous standards and accountability linked to them, and providing parents with expanded schooling options--Ohioans are of a different mind than Governor Strickland. Let's hope he takes the time to listen to the system's end-users (namely, parents and taxpayers) and not merely its producers.

The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) recently approved Ohio's growth model pilot (conditionally, at least) for use in the 2006-07 school year--clearing the way for the state's new value-added assessment program (see here ) to take effect in 2007-08. Under the program, student progress on state-mandated assessments can be tracked over time and the results factored into school and district school ratings. The DOE press release can be found here.

Ever wonder what separates a charter school sponsor (aka authorizer) from a non-profit governing board? A charter management organization (CMO) from an education management organization (EMO)? With so many characters treading the boards of Ohio's charter school stage, even Gadfly needs a little help keeping them all straight (that's when they're not blurring their roles on their own). To that end, readers may want to check out a brief summary of Ohio's charter school governance structure and those organizations that play key roles within it. It's available here.

A frank and at times sobering discussion about the future of Ohio's education system drew a host of concerned educators, philanthropists and policymakers to Columbus last week. "Beyond Tinkering: A Conversation about Education and Ohio's Economic Future" was hosted by the Ohio Grantmakers Forum, the Ohio Business Roundtable and the Policy Innovation in Education Network (PIE Net), of which Fordham is a part.

The day-long seminar featured remarks by the governor and a panel of legislative leaders--including Speaker Jon Husted and Senate President Bill Harris. And while each had his/her priorities (extended school day/calendar for Governor Strickland, STEM for Husted, and fewer charters for minority leaders Teresa Fedor and Joyce Beatty), there was unanimity in their message: The state's education system, while improving, is in need of serious reform if Ohio's citizens and its economy are to compete and prosper in the global marketplace.

How drastic a reform? The most radical vision belonged to Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). Citing the report Tough Choices or Tough Times by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, Tucker rendered a compelling argument for top-to-bottom reconstruction of the schooling enterprise.

In lieu of the current system, he and the New Commission envision a more efficient, streamlined replacement--one that would, among other things, 

• "graduate" students at age sixteen so they can enter college-credit course programs such as Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate, attend classes at community/technical colleges, or pursue other academic options; 
• eliminate district-level bureaucratic control and create loose networks of "contract" schools open to all students and run by independent operators; 
• raise teacher quality by recruiting top-notch college graduates and paying them as much as $110,000 per year for top-notch performance; and
• provide high-quality early childhood education.

To offer a more Ohio-specific--but almost equally radical--version of system redesign, Andrew Moffit of McKinsey & Co. discussed Creating a World-Class Education System in Ohio (see our analysis here), commissioned by Achieve, Inc. In it, the McKinsey team calls for such reforms as  

• empowering principals to be instructional--and autonomous--leaders;
• improving the quality of state content standards and assessments;
• ratcheting up levels of accountability for both schools and teachers, while providing them additional and meaningful support;
• offering a host of high-quality schooling options to all parents; and
• raising the level of transparency and equity in the state's troubled education funding system.

Last week's discussion was not confined to "mega-reforms." Breakout sessions explored sundry other strategies ranging from revamping teacher preparation programs and accelerating innovation in education systems, to establishing a seamless P-16 education program in Ohio. The cast of presenters was equally far-reaching, including Arthur Levine, former president of the Teachers College at Columbia University; Cynthia Brown, Director of Education Policy at the Center for American Progress; Columbus Public Schools superintendent Gene Harris; and Fordham's own Checker Finn.

With so many reform options (and experts) on deck, the big question is whether policymakers and educators can summon both the sound judgment to plot the right course (the internationally-benchmarked approach from Achieve/McKinsey remains our preference), and the steady hand to navigate it, rough seas and all, to a more effective and efficient education system in Ohio. Beyond tinkering, indeed.