Life was rough for charter school supporters immediately after the release of the recent National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) study of charter schools (see here). But newer test results out of Philadelphia and Massachusetts show that all the anti-charter hype was just more hypocrisy. In the City of Brotherly Love, charter schools, which are counted in the district's overall assessment under No Child Left Behind, saw their 2006 test scores dramatically improve over 2005's. They picked up the slack for other district public schools, which showed no gains over last year (such patterns have also occurred in Dayton, Ohio). And 30 percent of Bay State charter pupils performed "significantly higher" than their peers in district schools in reading and math, while another 60 percent performed as well as their district counterparts. Massachusetts Teachers' Association President Anne Wass offered this response to her state's results: "It doesn't put an end to the debate on charter schools by any means." That's reasonable enough--but where was Wass when AFT president Edward McElroy claimed that the NCES study "provides further evidence against unchecked expansion of the charter school experiment"? (Translation: This one study should put an end to the debate on charter schools.) And at least Massachusetts and Philadelphia gauged student performance over time, a more accurate, albeit still imperfect, method of evaluation than the one-time snapshot NAEP data on which the NCES study was based.

"Charters boost city schools' showing," by Susan Snyder, Alletta Emeno, and Dylan Purcell, Philadelphia Inquirer, September 1, 2006

"On exam, charter schools get edge," by Maria Sacchetti, Boston Globe, August 31, 2006

School superintendent Roger Schmiedeskamp of Manning, Iowa, is learning the hard way that applying modern management principles to public education can be risky. Greater transparency? Aggressive community outreach? Stripping away all pretense? These ideas may sound reasonable in theory, but implementing them in practice has landed Schmiedeskamp--who posed half-naked for a charity calendar--in hot water. (He was Mr. August, appropriate for back-to-school, while other Manning civic and business leaders assumed responsibility for the other eleven months.) Parent Kathy Swanson complained to state officials: "There definitely needs to be a reprimand." She found particularly distasteful the picture's milieu (Mr. August was sitting in a classroom desk). Parent/farmer Gary Rieschl called it "soft-core porn." Hogwash. Superintendent Schmiedeskamp, we salute your entrepreneurialism and willingness to take risks, and stand behind you...way, way behind you...all the way.

"Superintendent takes flak for calendar," Associated Press, September 2, 2006

Free markets, for all their virtues, do a poor job of distributing public goods like education, right? Anti-capitalist gobbledygook, says columnist Robert Samuelson. The free market, and its extension into what he calls the "American learning system," explains how the U.S., despite being out-performed by other nations on any number of K-12 test comparisons, remains the world's most advanced economy. While our formal school systems fail to achieve at the level of those in other advanced countries, our relatively unfettered economy produces a wealth of educational resources that help feed its own growth. As examples, he cites community colleges and for-profit institutions, such as the University of Phoenix; online and computer-based courses; formal and informal job training; and self-help books. In contrast to stiff school systems that cater only to students following the traditional route, the American learning system is flexible and dynamic--it "provides second chances" and is "job-oriented." Samuelson smartly recognizes that we would still benefit from fixing our formal education system, especially the lax standards that plague U.S. K-12 schools. But meanwhile, we should be grateful that our entrepreneurial spirit continues to help pick up where traditional schools leave off.

"How We Dummies Succeed," by Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post, September 6, 2006

Craig D. Jerald
The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement
August 2006

Last April, we reported on a study by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) that claimed the No Child Left Behind Act is pushing schools to abandon subjects such as history and the arts. Here's how that study's press release put it: "The Center also found that a majority of districts surveyed--71 percent--reported having reduced instructional time in at least one other subject to make more time for reading and mathematics, the topics tested for NCLB purposes." That shocking finding grabbed a headline on the front page of the Sunday New York Times and ushered in weeks of debate about how to save the "lost" curriculum. Enter savvy analyst Craig Jerald--formerly of Quality Counts and Education Trust. In a 6-page issue brief for the federally funded Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, he looks at all extant evidence on curricular narrowing and decides that CEP's conclusions are much exaggerated. His words on the CEP study itself: "[It] actually found that about one third of districts reported that their elementary schools had reduced social studies and science 'somewhat' or 'to a great extent,' and about one fifth said the same of art and music." "Somewhat" could have been five minutes or five hours a week--it's impossible to know. Still, that doesn't mean the curriculum isn't narrowing. Jerald finds some mild evidence that there is a slightly greater focus on reading and math than in the past. "For example," he writes, "teacher surveys given as part of the federal Schools and Staffing Survey show that from 1990 to 2004, the amount of time students in grades 1-4 spent on reading and mathematics increased by 96 minutes per week, while social studies and science lost 48 minutes." While this is no cause for Times-style panic, it is still worrying, Jerald argues. He picks up on E.D. Hirsch, Jr.'s theme that it's counterproductive for schools to "postpone" content until middle school, since learning content and vocabulary is essential for learning how to read. So schools should embed subjects like history and science within elementary school reading lessons. Amen. This crisp, short summation of the evidence is well worth your attention; you can find it here.

Matthew DeBell and Chris Chapman
National Center for Education Statistics
September 2006

As districts and schools make sensitive decisions about how best to allocate taxpayer dollars, questions arise over the usefulness of sinking large sums into technology (see "Luddite oversight," above). Mostly, these technology questions involve computers and how best to integrate them into classroom lessons. This report, which relies on aging (2003) data, summarizes student computer and internet use. Its findings seem to support those arguing for greater integration of computers in schools. That's because a digital divide still exists (although it's declining) between students of different races and socio-economic backgrounds. For example, black students are 7 percent less likely than their white peers to use a computer, and 21 percent less likely to use the internet. Eighty-four percent of poor students use computers, while 93 percent of students who are not poor do (the gap in internet use is even larger). The report also concludes that schools are a help in bridging the digital divide. Twenty percent of students access the internet at only one location (for most, it is school), and of them, 60 percent are members of families in poverty. Understanding computers and being able to use technology with ease is becoming a requirement for success not only in high-tech jobs, but at the university level and in many types of so-called "unskilled" labor positions. Students without such knowledge are at a disadvantage. On a more positive note, the gender divide of the 1990s (when boys were likelier to use computers than girls) has disappeared. This report contains other interesting findings about how students use computers, when they start using them, and suchlike. It's too bad that, in an arena where change occurs so rapidly, the latest numbers we have are three years old. The report is available here.

Didn't feel the passion of Labor Day? Not to worry. Just pick up the Ohio Education Association's (OEA) new handbook for collective bargainers--complete with the introduction "Prepare for Battle," a rousing call to arms by OEA's own Dr. Strangelove, researcher Patricia A. Turner.

Enlivening an otherwise mundane read, Ms. Turner declares, "Public education is under siege; losing the battle in Ohio is not an option because the stakes are too high!"  The OEA's "enemies" are many: school boards, charter schools, school voucher programs, high-stakes testing, merit pay schemes, and data-driven initiatives.

Luckily, she outlines seven keys to victory including such maxims as "keep the faith," "remain hopeful," and "understand fear." Bargainers are also warned to ignore the weaknesses in public schools because, after all, there are only "good schools and great schools." In fact, critical thinking is discouraged altogether as Turner cautions, "A healthy mind is one that is not wondering or wandering."

Absent from the handbook is what exactly OEA bargainers should be fighting for--except perhaps that public education "should not be expected to meet the huge number of goals expected in today's society." 

This handbook for "victory" begins with its own admission of defeat.

Late summer in Ohio is open season on charter schools. With the release of the Ohio Department of Education's (ODE) state report cards on school achievement, critics have launched repeated volleys aimed at tearing down the state's charter school program. This year's carping is especially vicious as state elections loom in November.

While criticism comes in the form of a slew of reports, articles, and editorials seemingly from a variety of concerned audiences, it's easy to discern a steady, orchestrated refrain: Ohio's charter school program is little more than a "failed experiment" in need of terminating.

The tactic, frequently employed by teacher unions to disparage opponents, is hardly new (see here). The difference this time is that Ohio's charters are in the crosshairs.

Take a recent report from the Ohio Education Association (OEA), which asserts that charter schools pose a grave threat--both academic and financial--to Ohio's education system. Unless halted, "this experiment will continue to put a generation of public school students and charter school students at risk."

The Coalition for Public Education (CPE), funded by the state's teacher unions, is no less vituperative. Coalition researchers (many on loan from the New York and DC bureaus of the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association) recently claimed that while vast majorities of district students were proficient in math and reading (86 percent and 80 percent, respectively), charter school students lagged far behind with rates of 29 percent and 21 percent. Ohio Federation of Teachers president and CPE chairman Tom Mooney fussed, "After nearly a decade, this experiment with public education by private providers continues to fail."

Richard Gunther, an Ohio State University professor and expert on southern European democracies (a natural authority on charter schools), most recently towed the union line in an August 28 Columbus Dispatch editorial. Gunther argued that while 70 percent of traditional public schools earned ratings of either Excellent or Effective, just 17 percent of charters did the same. And yes, he used that old line again, "the costs of this failed experiment have undermined public education."

Staged rhetoric aside, many charter schools do need to improve or be shuttered. But the same goes for the 325 district schools rated in Academic Watch or Academic Emergency.

As for comparisons, charters rarely do well against "all district schools" as many district schools are vastly wealthier and serve fewer disadvantaged students. Not to mention that charters are allowed to operate only in the state's lowest performing districts.

Consider charter school achievement alongside that of district schools in large urban communities, and the picture is quite different. In Dayton, charter school students easily outperformed district students in grades four through eight on the math and reading portions of the 2005-06 state assessments. Cincinnati's charters surpassed their district counterparts in fourth-, sixth-, and seventh-grade reading, as well as fourth-grade math. In Cleveland, public charter students outpaced their district peers in grades three, six, and eight math as well as grades three, five, six, seven, and eight reading. And 46 percent of Cleveland's charters made Adequate Yearly Progress, compared to just 13 percent of district schools.

Improving student achievement in Ohio's urban communities remains a tremendous challenge for both charters and district schools. Yet while the drumbeat of charter critics may sound loudly, it cannot obscure the fact that a growing number of charter schools are outperforming district schools that have over 150 combined years of experience.

Not bad for an "experiment" that's less than ten years old.

"Ohio's Charter Schools Are Failing to Perform as Well as Its Public Schools," by Richard Gunther, The Columbus Dispatch, August 28, 2006.

Download OEA's study here, and read CPE's release here.

Ohio's schoolchildren aren't being well served by the state's mediocre (or worse) learning expectations. That's just one of the findings of Fordham's The State of State Standards 2006, a new report which evaluates state academic standards. When the average state grade is a "C-minus", the same as six years earlier (Ohio earned a "D-plus" this go round), what is to be done? Go national. Another new report from Fordham, To Dream the Impossible Dream: Four Approaches to National Standards and Tests for America's Schools, brings together education policy leaders from across the political spectrum to flesh out and evaluate several forms that national standards and testing could take.

This school year marks the first that Ohio gets serious about the Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT). Students in the class of 2007 will be required to pass the OGT in order to receive a high school diploma. It's a critical first step on the road to ensuring that the state's high school diplomas carry more weight both with universities and with potential employers.

But it's far from the last step. Achieve, Inc. found that the OGT is set at the eighth-grade level, and students must answer just a small percentage of questions in math and reading (36 percent and 52 percent, respectively) to pass. That's one reason we've been keen supporters of Governor Taft's Ohio Core proposal (see here), which, should it pass, would require students to take additional math and science courses and better prepare them for post-secondary opportunities.

Yet a rigorous college preparatory curriculum needs a metric that can effectively evaluate its impact. The OGT isn't it.

Ohio should defer to its southern neighbor for guidance. Kentucky's Board of Education is strongly considering augmenting its high school assessment, the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System (CATS), with ACT questions in reading, writing, math and science. Such a move would increase the rigor of the CATS and add the unique capability to compare performance on state test items with achievement on a national indicator of college readiness.

Kentucky already passed legislation this year requiring all high school juniors to take the ACT, starting in 2007-08. EXPLORE and PLAN, ACT's eighth- and tenth-grade companion assessments, were also adopted--along with the option for students to take WorkKeys, a work place readiness test. Two decisions also up for consideration include whether to compare student scores on the ACT and PLAN with national averages, and whether students' ACT scores should be factored into overall high school ratings. These steps--coupled with a tougher state assessment--could help ensure Kentucky's graduates are better prepared for life after high school.

Meanwhile, Ohio's cities continue to rank in the lowest rungs of annual income surveys. Cleveland ranked dead last on the U.S. Census Bureau's recent list of the nation's large cities, its median household income just $24,105. Cincinnati rests only four spots above with a median household income of $29,554. And Dayton placed ninth from the bottom in the mid-size city survey, its median household income figure at under $26,000.

These numbers will continue to disappoint if Ohio's future graduates aren't adequately prepared to meet the demands of college and the work place. Measuring their readiness is a critical step in such preparation.

The OGT may have grown some teeth this year, but it's still weak in the knees. Ohio's State Board of Education members should follow Kentucky's lead and consider the ACT.

In this instance, the bluegrass may definitely be greener.

"ACT, SAT-Driven High Schools," Editorial, The Cincinnati Enquirer, September 1, 2006.

"State Officials Embrace ACT," by Karen Gutierrez, The Cincinnati Enquirer, August 29, 2006.

"Survey: Ohio's Cities Rank Low for Income," by Ken McCall, The Dayton Daily News, August 29, 2006.

Check out the Kentucky Board of Education's agenda here.

At first glance, young Americans' college prospects seem bright. Four in five high-school students expect to complete a college degree, and most parents are behind them, with six out of 10 agreeing a college education is "absolutely necessary" for their child. Sadly, only one-third of all high school students will actually earn a college degree. 

So says this policy brief from the Education Commission of the States (ECS), which examines the gap between students' academic expectations and the realities they face. Bottom line, students are more optimistic about their futures than they probably should be. Several issues complicate their efforts to secure a college degree. For one, students and parents are misinformed about what it takes to prepare for college. Fewer than 12 percent of high-schoolers even know what courses they should take (another reason to support the Ohio Core).

Students whose parents did not go to college are at a particular disadvantage. Just 19 percent were found to be "very qualified" to enroll in a four-year college, compared to 31 percent of students whose parents had completed some college.

In response, ECS recommends that high school students and parents set clear goals, choose challenging high school courses, and learn more about colleges' expectations-all of which will raise students' chances of future success in college. The commission also calls for states to make college more affordable and to require that schools provide parents with annual updates of their children's college readiness.

Though the brief contains little new information, it's an important reminder that while pluralities of parents and students are realizing the "why" of earning a college degree, there are miles to go in learning the "how."

Read the commission's brief here.