In a concerted effort to improve sector quality, Ohio has wisely strengthened its charter school laws. The reforms include a rigorous evaluation system for sponsors—the gatekeepers of quality as they authorize and directly oversee public charter schools—and good-governance provisions designed to build confidence in the sector. These reforms have been vigorously implemented, and they’ve helped prod bad actors—both schools and sponsors—to change their ways or take a hike. Evidence from school report cards and a recent evaluation indicate promising signs of improvement in performance after the reforms. And now that there’s a stronger accountability framework in place, policymakers are taking more active steps to narrow longstanding charter funding gaps.

In sum, a lot of good is coming from these efforts. But as with all reforms, course corrections are often needed as implementation issues arise. The House-passed version of the state budget bill addresses a few important problems in the charter accountability framework, but the lower chamber misses the mark by overcompensating in their proposed solutions. They risk turning back the clock to an era of looser standards and less certain quality. As the bill winds through the upper chamber, senators should reconsider the House’s approach on the following issues and tackle them in a more careful way.

Sponsor evaluations

The House proposal would give five-year reprieves from state evaluations to sponsors that receive “Effective” ratings. Some context is needed to understand what’s going on. In fall 2016, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) rolled out a revamped evaluation system that aimed to rein in lax sponsorship practices that many, including us at Fordham, believed were contributing to uneven sector performance. The evaluation consists of three components: (1) the academic performance of sponsors’ schools; (2) compliance with various laws and regulations; and (3) adherence with quality practices. After combining these results, an overall rating of Exemplary, Effective, Ineffective, or Poor is assigned.

The evaluation system has worked largely as intended, driving out low-quality and less-committed sponsors. Sixty-five sponsors were active in 2015–16, compared to only thirty-four in 2017–18. Most of the departed sponsors were school districts that authorized a single school, usually a dropout-recovery charter. The system has also encouraged more attentive sponsorship practices. For instance, more sponsors are now closing chronic low performers by non-renewing or terminating school contracts. They also seem to be pickier about startup applicants. 

But the system has also been a bureaucratic nightmare for sponsors due to the excessive amount of paperwork involved in the compliance and quality practices reviews. In response to these concerns, some legislators seem to have been convinced that giving exemptions from the system is the best solution. The House proposal provides five-year reprieves from evaluations to sponsors that receive three consecutive years of an Effective rating, criteria that would likely exempt a large number of sponsors. For instance, four sponsors (including Fordham) received Effective ratings for the past three years, and another eleven have done so in the past two. Taken together, these fifteen sponsors authorize 81 percent of Ohio charter schools.

I can sympathize with the frustrations of sponsors: No one wants to spend weeks filling out paperwork and uploading documents. It’s not only irritating, it’s also a poor use of time and resources. But the answer isn’t to grant wholesale exemptions that allow sponsors to ignore the academic performance of schools for half a decade. There are other, more nuanced solutions that would maintain a strong accountability mechanism but also reduce the onerous burdens involved in the compliance and quality practices reviews. They include the following options, both of which we at Fordham have suggested before.

• Option 1: Reduce the burdens of the compliance and quality practices reviews by using audit-like processes. State legislators could require ODE to randomly check compliance with items on the compliance and quality-practices rubrics. Or alternatively, ODE could annually check the most critical items, such as compliance with health and safety laws, while periodically reviewing less essential ones.

• Option 2: Conduct annual evaluations of sponsors’ academic component but review compliance and quality practices on two- or three-year cycles. This option ensures that sponsors maintain a focus on the academic performance of their schools, but reduces the burdens of the other evaluation components by requiring them less frequently.

Both of these options ensure that sponsors—just like school districts—are held accountable on an annual basis for the academic performance of the schools they oversee. They would also address sponsors’ concerns about the burdens of the compliance and quality practices reviews.

Sponsor assurances

In 2007, Ohio lawmakers enacted provisions that require sponsors, on an annual basis, to verify that their schools meet baseline operational standards before serving students. These “pre-opening assurances,” which sponsors submit to ODE in writing, are a critical check on whether the charter school has, for example, completed a health and safety inspection, conducted criminal background checks, obtained liability insurance, and created a plan for special education. Like an airplane pilot doing a routine check before flying a plane, these basic assurances ensure that schools are operationally sound and children are not put in harm’s way.

The House legislation, however, removes this annual check, and instead requires sponsors to conduct assurances only when a school is brand-new or when it changes buildings. This means that sponsors would not need to conduct pre-opening assurances in the vast majority of their schools. One possible motivation for this proposal is that, over the years, ODE has piled on some likely unnecessary assurances that have made the process more laborious. For instance, ODE now asks questions around budget forecasts, which are not explicitly mentioned in statute. But as with sponsor evaluations, the solution isn’t to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than simply excusing sponsors from this important duty, legislators should make sure that the assurances provisions require sponsors to check the most critical basic protocols needed each year to safely open a school—the original intention of the law.

Accountability for dropout-recovery charter schools

Dropout recovery schools are specially designated charters that have been held accountable via alternative school report cards since 2014–15. Dropout-recovery report cards include less conventional metrics, such as a growth measure from a national exam and extended cohort graduation rates (e.g., an eight-year rate). They also exclude more traditional measures, like the state’s performance index and indicators of readiness for post-secondary success (ACT/SAT scores or career-tech credentials). Overall, their use has been controversial. Some people, myself included, think they expect less of dropout-recovery schools. Others argue that they are fair—or even too demanding—given the backgrounds of the students they serve.

But a House provision would stop—for an indeterminate time period—the release of any report cards. Specifically, the bill calls for a study committee tasked with examining the “classification, authorization, and report card ratings” of certain dropout-recovery schools. That’s probably a good idea given the disagreements surrounding their report cards. But there’s a twist: The state is prohibited from issuing dropout-recovery report cards until the committee releases its report and the legislature acts in some manner to revise the report cards. This is almost certain to give dropout-recovery schools a reprieve from 2018–19 report cards and likely well into the future. If the legislature chooses not to do anything, it would end dropout-recovery report cards—a clear abdication of the state’s responsibility to hold all schools accountable for pupil results.

***

There is one House proposal that merits support: the modification of the automatic closure criteria for charter schools, something I’ve written about at length elsewhere. While it may appear to be another blow to charter accountability, the provision would actually ensure that this mechanism works as originally intended—forcing closure of the very lowest-performing schools. Instead of basing mandatory closure on two poor school ratings in three years, the House would require closure upon three consecutive years of poor ratings. Due to the increased rigor of the overall state accountability framework, a three-year timetable is justified.  

The Senate should approve the adjustments on automatic closure. But it should rethink the way the House handles issues regarding sponsors and dropout-recovery charter schools. Ohio has made significant progress in recent years on charter-school accountability. It’s prudent to fine-tune sponsor regulations—but, as written, the House changes go way too far and risks slipping back into old habits.  

1. As budget season grinds on, hearings continue on all things HB 166. This includes things that are not in the budget bill but might eventually be. To wit: The “dueling” proposals on graduation requirements that we have mentioned a couple of times in these clips. Our own Chad Aldis was among the witnesses testifying this week in favor of one proposal or the other. (Gongwer Ohio, 5/22/19)

2. Here is a great story, dateline Lorain, about a student at Horizon Science Academy who has taken her talent for singing and dancing from Northeast Ohio to cities across the country and even in Canada. All thanks to the extensive network of Concept Schools and their commitment to cultivating the arts in their charter schools (had to mention that since the MJ didn’t) and giving students wide opportunities to travel and perform. Nice! (The Morning Journal, 5/23/19)

3. New-ish Marion supe Ron Iarussi is hiring a bunch of new administrators AND cutting the district’s contract with the local ESC by $500K (how much?!) in order to provide needed supports for principals and for kids. Hope nobody sues! (Marion Star, 5/23/19)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox (in case you want to be a grinder and sign up for such a newsletter)? Subscribe by clicking here.

Charter school helps talented music student shine

My'Jia Brown, a junior at Horizon Science Academy of Lorain, was recently featured in The Morning Journal for her recent success in singing and dancing. Brown, after successful school-level performances, was selected to compete at the Concept Schools Art and Language Festival in Chicago in April. Shining again, she received the opportunity to compete in the International Festival of Language and Culture, where she is currently performing across North America with students from around the globe. Brown says she wouldn’t be where she is today without the support and opportunities she received at her charter school.

Online charter students recognized for academic achievement

On Monday, Ohio Connections Academy (OCA) hosted an event at the McConnell Arts Center in Worthington in which they recognized seventy-three students for their outstanding academic achievements and community service. During the event, they also held a ceremony in which fifty-seven students were inducted into the National Honor Society.

Bernie Sanders on charter schools

Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders called this week for a ban on all for-profit charter schools and a moratorium on the funding of all charter school expansion until a national audit confirms that they’re operating with transparency and accountability. Sanders is the first of the Democratic presidential candidates to insist on such a move. You can find more information about the announcement here, an editorial from the New York Post here, and a response from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) here.

Legislative update

While all eyes are focused on the biennial budget bill, House Bill 166, the House and Senate Education committees did meet this week. The House heard testimony on a bill related to food allergy training, while the Senate heard testimony on graduation requirements. You can access testimony from the House here and the Senate here.

Congress needs to hear from the charter community

In Congress, the House increased education funding by $4 billion dollars for Fiscal Year 2020. Unfortunately, at the same time, it cut funding for the Charter Schools Program (CSP) by $40 million. As the budget shifts to the upper chamber, it’s critical that the Senate know that you support an increase in funding for the CSP.  Take a minute, by clicking here, to have your voice heard.

Florida is celebrating the twenty-year mark of the A+ Plan for Education, which brought accountability, parental choice, and evidence-based practices to the state’s schools. And to be sure, it’s an occasion worth celebrating, given the Sunshine State’s strong record of educational progress since then-governor Jeb Bush and his legislative partners ushered in the integrated suite of landmark reforms.

The most compelling numbers come from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a.k.a. The Nation’s Report Card. From the late 1990s until 2017, the reading performance of black fourth graders in Florida skyrocketed 26 points—equivalent to more than two grade levels worth of progress. For Hispanic students, the gain was 27 points, and for low-income kids it was an astonishing 29 points. The numbers for eighth-grade math were almost as impressive: rises of 27 points for black, 19 for Hispanic, and 21 for low-income students.

These results—especially in reading—put almost every other state to shame, and lifted Florida from the middle of the pack to the top tier. And while much of this progress happened in the 2000s, Florida had the best showing in the nation on the 2017 NAEP in terms of progress over time, too.

To be sure, a handful of other states made strong gains at times over the past two decades, too. Massachusetts deserves special praise for zooming to the very top of the rankings in practically every category, but New Jersey, Indiana, and, more recently, Mississippi showed strength, as well.

But consider an important qualification: States like Massachusetts and New Jersey made progress, but spent a ton of money along the way. Schools in the Bay State, for example, increased spending 22 percent from 1999 to 2009—the period of its greatest NAEP gains—or about $3,000 per child in inflation-adjusted dollars. New Jersey schools, meanwhile, now spend an average of $21,000 a year, up about a third in real dollars since 1990.

Florida, on the other hand, kept spending per pupil flat as a pancake, actually inching downward from $9,765 per pupil in 1990 to $9,724 in 2016 in inflation-adjusted dollars. This makes Florida a serious outlier, as the next-stingiest state, Arizona, increased spending by 13 percent, or about $1,000 per pupil, over the same period. Considering Florida’s achievement gains, it means the return on investment of the A+ reforms are through the roof.

Some may assert that these numbers prove that “money doesn’t matter,” but let’s remember that correlation does not equal causation. Recent rigorous studies by Kirabo Jackson and others have shown that significant increases in state spending do generally lead to better outcomes for kids. Which makes the Sunshine State’s feat all the more improbable.

After Arizona adopted reforms comparable to Florida’s, it too saw dramatic improvements in achievement—and strong ROI. Similar fast-growing, low-spending states in the booming Sun Belt—hola, Texas!—should take note.

We’ve long had proof that the “Florida Model” can drive improvements in student achievement. What’s clear now is that Governor Bush and others may have hit on an approach that also gets incredible return on investment. That’s good news for kids, and for taxpayers to boot.

A version of this essay was first published by The Foundation for Florida’s Future.

This essay is part of the The Moonshot for Kids project, a joint initiative of the Fordham Institute and the Center for American Progress. This is the final of three parts. The first two explained how educators and ed reformers’ long appetite for school reinvention and holistic reform came together in the early 1990s in a major R & D initiative. The vehicle was a new nonprofit entity named the New American Schools Development Corporation—known as NASDC, commonly referred to simply as New American Schools, sometimes NAS. The conception was magnificent, but the reality would prove something less than that. The organization was bent on transforming existing, district-operated public schools, which is always a heavy lift, whether the existing schools are educational successes or failures.

The NAS teams faced all of these challenges in places like Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Miami, and Memphis. Almost everywhere they went it turned into a slog. This led RAND to conclude (as of 1998) that NAS’s initial aim—to “transform the achievement of large numbers of students with design teams and the assistance they provided to schools”—was “overly ambitious.” Roughly half the schools in the evaluation sample “made gains relative to the district” in which they were located—but the other half did not.

Simply scaling up brought challenges aplenty because the quantity of technical assistance required to transform even a single existing school, particularly one in trouble, proved costly, time consuming, and something best done by sophisticated individuals who were well versed not only in the new design but also in the myriad issues associated with school leadership, education (and municipal) politics, race relations, and organization theory. They also had to be pleasant, patient, tireless—and willing to spend many weeks far from home. If, however, a design team failed to achieve sufficient scale, it wouldn’t have the district fees it needed even to keep operating.

“By mid-1997,” Mirel writes, “NAS was well into becoming more of a clearinghouse than an initiator of reform and was changing the design teams into market-oriented purveyors of educational improvement. NAS increasingly focused on helping the teams become self-sufficient organizations capable of marketing and supporting their products.” Some of them, however, “had virtually no business or marketing experience.” Finances tightened, the more so because “so many of the clients targeted by NAS were low-performing, financially strapped districts.”

Various rescue-and-salvage attempts were undertaken, as was much Washington lobbying, which prompted Congress in 1997 to enact the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program, commonly known (after its lead sponsors) as the “Obey-Porter Amendment.” This opened the federal till to release $150 million “for competitive grants to aid schools in adopting ‘proven’ whole-school reform models,” with the NAS teams widely viewed as the best-established and perhaps the best models available.

They were not, however, the only such, nor was it clear that they were even “proven.” “With the possible exception of Roots and Wings [which built on John Hopkins professor Robert Slavin’s well-established “Success for All” program]”, Mirel wrote, “at the time that Obey-Porter was enacted the NAS designs still couldn’t provide substantial evidence of effectiveness.”

Nor could many others! In 1999, the American Institutes of Research (AIR) published “An Educator’s Guide to Schoolwide Reform,” timed to take advantage of Obey-Porter, which examined twenty-four different whole-school designs in search of convincing data showing that, when properly implemented, they had a positive impact on student achievement. It turned out that just three of the twenty-four had “strong” evidence of that kind—and none was an NAS design. Among the eight NAS programs then still active, only one could boast “promising” evidence, and one other appeared “marginal” in boosting achievement. None of the others could even be rated because they had too little data.

For its part, RAND continued to evaluate the NAS designs themselves, comparing the performance within districts of schools that adopted them to similar schools that didn’t, again using pupil achievement as the marker. Again, the results were equivocal. (Strongest, I’m pleased to report, was the Hudson Institute-based “Modern Red Schoolhouse” team, with which I had a loose advisory affiliation for a time.) Of the eleven schools using its design that fell into RAND’s sample seven surpassed their districts in math gains and eight did so in reading. But taken as a whole, only about half the NAS schools in the study did better than their unchanged district counterparts.

Other problems followed, notably Memphis’s jettisoning of the entire NAS venture in 2001. That large, troubled city on the Mississippi had been by far the largest adopter of these new designs. A dynamic change-minded superintendent with a supportive school board had bought into the “break the mold” concept and induced nearly every school in town to work with one of the NAS teams. But reluctant schools dragged their feet on implementation; budgets tightened; the design teams had to cut back on technical assistance; and politics erupted. The reforming superintendent was ousted. Then so was NAS.

Sadly, similar tales can be recited of many other efforts at large-scale, top-down education change, whether at the municipal, state, or national levels. After an ambitious launch, with great leadership, political support and seemingly ample funding, things begin to go awry. Funding priorities change. Revenues declined. Leaders leave or are fired. Elections happen. And the giant rubber band of American public education follows its inherent need to snap back into its original shape once the external tension is eased.

Three years after being shown the door in Memphis, NAS itself would merge into AIR, which continues today to assist schools and districts in various ways to improve themselves, but which no longer has a unit—at least none that I can spot—dedicated entirely to “whole school reform” via “break-the-mold” designs. Meanwhile, however, NAS’s leaders were busy in the early 2000s, helping their teams strategize, steering some of them into what would become viable self-supporting ventures (sometimes of the for-profit kind), working cannily to persuade Uncle Sam to come up with fresh federal funding for such reforms and, as that money came on line, vetting many of the additional organizations that sought to partake of it.

“Comprehensive School Reform” got renewed traction in Washington, and much fresh money when 2002’s NCLB authorized a new federal program with that name, which lasted through 2005 (with some funds still being expended as late as 2008) and was then succeeded in 2009 by what became a massive federal program of School Improvement Grants (SIG), itself part of the same recession-recovery dollar gusher as “Race to the Top.” 

Disappointingly, an evaluation of that multi-billion venture, published in 2017, reported that, taken as a whole, it had no significant effect on student outcomes.

Policy analyst Andy Smarick might well have said “I told you so,” for an important article that he published in 2010 suggested that whole-school turnaround efforts rarely if ever succeed in converting sow-ear schools into silk purses. And a Fordham Institute study released that same year concluded that “low-performing public schools—both charter and traditional district schools—are stubbornly resistant to significant change.”

Yet the dreams never die: the dream that schools can be reinvented through “break the mold” development efforts (see for example the Emerson Collective’s ongoing “XQ SuperSchool” venture, targeted on high schools); the dream that good ideas and proven practices can be amassed into coherent, comprehensive school plans instead of competing, piecemeal reforms; and the dream that chronically low-performing schools can be “turned around.”

Yes, change occurs in schools, often for the better, but it’s almost always gradual and incomplete. Yes, bad schools can often be improved, but seldom totally rebooted. That generally calls for thoroughly replacing staff as well as curriculums, sometimes also replacing at least some of the students, all of which is contentious and politically problematic. Even when most of that happens, it’s no guarantee that the school will produce stronger outcomes—or that any stronger outcomes that it produces for a while will endure. (What happens when, for example, the charismatic new principal departs or the outside “turnaround specialists” go off to work on another basket case?)

After reviewing troves of research, here’s what the federally-supported What Works Clearinghouse concludes about “comprehensive school reform”:

CSR programs can modestly improve student achievement in most circumstances. Effects appear strongest after CSR has been implemented for several years…. Research suggests that schools can best implement CSR by fitting it to their circumstances, selectively pursuing cohesive reforms, and building time and resources for CSR into regular operation. The professional development component of CSR appears most effective when teachers and administrators share leadership and focus on evidence-based practices…. High costs and maintaining political will and buy-in from school districts, principals, and teachers are challenges to implementing and sustaining CSR programs over the long time horizon needed for change. Research indicates that most schools pursuing CSR do not fully implement it.

Yet there were more chapters to follow, for just coming into view as NASDC launched, and continuing today at the remarkable scale of 7,000 schools, the vast majority of them “start from scratch,” and primarily dedicated to improving the education of poor and minority children, was the phenomenon of public charter schools. It has always faced resistance—that rubber band yearns to snap back—and its performance to date ranges from appalling to astonishing, but charters look like they’re here to stay. And the federal government’s support in developing and scaling that particular reform has been important. In a later piece, I’ll have more to say about that.

A recent study in The Review of Economics and Statistics looks at changes in school funding over the last several decades, a period when courts ordered states to remedy the huge funding inequalities that had resulted from local funding of education by allocating additional state funds to poorer districts.

So how did districts spend these new funds, which were earmarked for education? It might seem that a new, dedicated funding source implies that money for schools must increase. But in reality, because the older funding sources aren’t dedicated, funding doesn’t necessarily have to rise at all. In many cases lawmakers reallocate the money that was already being spent, increasing spending in other areas or returning the money to taxpayers.

The authors of the study had an interesting hypothesis. They believed that teachers union strength—determined by a measure developed here at Fordham—might have an important effect on whether the new dollars actually resulted in increases to education spending in general, and teachers’ salaries in particular. They further hypothesized that those differences in funding levels might impact student achievement.

The results of the study provide evidence consistent with all of these hypotheses, and the study has three key takeaways.

First, the strength of teachers’ unions really does correlate with whether state aid actually leads to increased education spending. School districts in states with the strongest unions increased education expenditures nearly dollar-for-dollar with increases in state aid. But in districts in states with the weakest unions, local funding fell, and education expenditures increased less than twenty-five cents for each dollar of state aid.

Second, union strength also correlates with how the new dollars are spent. Districts in states with strong teachers unions allocated more of the additional spending toward increasing teacher salaries, while districts in weak-union states spent the money primarily on increased teacher hiring. Also, spending in non-instructional areas like capital outlays, administration, and classroom support increased more in strong teachers union states than in states with weak teachers unions.

Third, they find that the larger expenditure increases in strong teachers union states translates into increased student achievement: Ten years after the increases in state funding, students test scores in low-income districts had risen across the board—but in those districts in weak teachers union states, students scored 8 percent of a standard deviation higher, while in strong teachers union states, that increase doubled to 16 percent of a SD.

These results are fascinating because they touch on important issues for equity and raise questions about how additional school funding is best spent. Fordham has long discussed America’s skyrocketing per-pupil expenditure that, rather than being directed towards teachers’ salaries, has instead gone towards efforts to reduce class sizes and hire more support staff. This study again raises the question: Would we be better off just paying teachers more with all that extra money?

SOURCE: Eric Brunner et al., “School Finance Reforms, Teachers’ Unions, and the Allocation of School Resources,” Review of Economics and Statistics (March 2019).

Early college high schools are those in which students pursue college credits as a requirement for graduation. A new report from American Enterprise Institute (AEI) authors Amy Cummings and Frederick Hess looks at the early college model built by the leaders of The 21st Century Charter School at Gary (21C) in Indiana, finding it unique, important, and worthy of replication. But the report raises questions.

It is probably fitting that what’s considered to be the pivotal breakthrough in building 21C’s early college model was a fluke. The leader of the Indiana charter school was trying to show a student who was bright but felt adrift in high school that he was “college material” and should persevere rather than drop out. In doing so, the leader discovered that the nearby community college had only one requirement for admission: passage of the ACCUPLACER assessment. No age limit, no prerequisite courses, no high school diploma. That student was the first at 21C shown to be “college material” after easily passing the test. Shortly thereafter, the leader decided to have every eighth grader at the K-12 school follow in his footsteps and take the test. Those who passed would begin college courses the following year.

That was back in 2010, and the program has evolved steadily over the years. Unlike most early college high schools, 21C is not located on a college campus. But school leaders still wanted their students—83.5 percent of whom qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, and most of whom would be the first in their families to go to college—to have the fullest possible experience of higher education. So the school decided to provide transportation for all the students taking college courses to and from campus every day—a huge and important commitment which required hundreds of thousands of dollars in startup funding and a complete revamping of the high school schedule, not to mention getting parents and students on board with it.

Even more impressive is the expansive menu of courses that students are allowed to choose from. They can attend any of four institutions in the area, including four-year colleges, such as Vincennes and Purdue, with very few limits on eligible classes. And all paid for out of the charter school’s budget. Students are offered ongoing counseling and support for their college work. And expectations are high: By 2012, 21C required every student to complete three college credit hours to graduate. By 2018, that number increased to twenty-four—the equivalent of a full year of college. The focus with which 21C has embraced every part of their rapidly-expanding model has even allowed many students to go far above those minimum requirements. For example, during the 2018–19 school year, nine students will earn associate degrees—two years of college—concurrent with their high school diplomas.

21C’s efforts to get students to and through college and on the path to the middle class are generally laudable, but questions arise in the form of a table of data provided by Cummings and Hess in the report. Those data show that 21C’s youngest students—grades three through eight—perform better on Indiana’s state math and English language arts tests than their Gary district peers. However, the overall passing rates for those youngsters are still very low, especially in math. Come the tenth grade tests in both subjects, 21C’s overall passing rates nearly flatline and fall well below those of Gary district students. In any other school—district or charter—those test scores would be extremely concerning.

So what to make of the dissonance between the low achievement of 21C students, on the one hand, and the loads of college credits they are clearly earning, on the other? It’s hard to say. Perhaps the hyper-focus on college means a shift in student attitudes. If kids are gunning for an associate degree starting in ninth grade, maybe tenth grade math tests just don’t matter. Perhaps Indiana’s changing graduation requirements—which will make the tenth grade tests optional for graduation starting in 2019–20—have something to do with those low numbers at 21C. Or perhaps the ACCUPLACER assessment and the college coursework taken by most students are actually below the level of even the tenth grade tests. To be clear, the leaders of 21C are not responsible for ACCUPLACER’s level of rigor or for the admissions criteria adopted by any of the colleges with which they work. They have built their early college model using the raw materials at hand.

However it’s happening, the AEI report makes clear that 21C students are succeeding at earning college credit. Early, quickly, and free of charge. The good folks at The 21st Century Charter School at Gary have taken tremendous positive steps for their students and are seeing some notable wins. But the very first key point made by the AEI authors is the most important: It is far too early to tell if this model actually “works.” They are right; the evidence at hand leaves more questions than answers.

SOURCE: Amy Cummings and Frederick M. Hess, “’A Small School with Big Chances’: The 21st Century charter school at Gary,” AEI (May 2019).

1. Edunerd Alert! State ed board member Sarah Fowler this week schooled a bunch of Rotarians on the difference between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests, among other topics. Why yes, there WAS a discussion about Common Core. Why do you ask? (The News-Herald, 5/20/19)

2. Canton City Schools are apparently facing a sudden and substantial budget shortfall. Board and staff are reacting quickly, I think, but the effort is making them say and do some weird stuff. First up, staff reductions to combat the impending deficit include laying off “13 classified employees, most of whom worked as a No Child Left Behind Assistant.” Notwithstanding that I can’t imagine what such a job would have entailed back in the day, but if we’re talking about the federal NCLB law, aren’t we way way beyond that here in 2019? The district business manager estimates “it has been more than a decade since the district last laid off employees because of financial reasons”. No kidding, dude. We can tell. (Canton Repository, 5/20/19) Reducing busing in the district is another go-to way to save some money. Seems that Canton has been very generous with this service for the last six years, transporting any interested student who lives within a quarter mile of their school. And even after the upcoming cut, the district will remain more generous than they have to, expanding the transportation radius to one mile, as opposed to the state’s two-mile minimum. Why so liberal with the transportation infrastructure? Back in 2013, the quarter-mile rule was put in place to “improve student attendance and stabilize enrollment”. Unfortunately it has not worked out that way at all, the district’s business manager (and Speaker of Weird Truths, I reckon) tells the Rep: “There is no correlation. Enrollment continues to decline and attendance has pretty much stayed even.” (Canton Rep, 5/20/19) Hmmm. Perhaps I was wrong. The weird stuff seems to have been done prior to the current budget problem and all of it is now coming home to roost.

3. General Johnnie Wilson (U.S. Army, ret.) visited the Lorain middle school named after him this week, as he usually does at the end of the year. In addition to his duties at the bridging ceremony for students moving up to high school, Gen. Wilson this year also visited students during the school day, reiterating lessons learned in his hometown that led him from private to four-star general. Among the standard discussion of the Golden Rule, character, and respect, the general also took time to mention some rather exciting academic boosts that took place this school year: writing proficiency has improved by a whopping 29 percent. Pretty fantastic, right? Sir, yes sir! (The Morning Journal, 5/20/19) Graduation day in Lorain sounds like it was pretty awesome too. Glad to see that the “engulfing chaos” supposedly rampant in Lorain didn’t disrupt everything. (Elyria Chronicle, 5/22/19)

4. Speaking of turnaround efforts, the brand new Columbus City Schools supe is starting what sounds like a big and all-encompassing reorganization effort which includes demotions, reassignments, and what will probably be some costly new hires at the top. Hope nobody sues! (Columbus Dispatch, 5/21/19)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox (in case you want to be an Edunerd and sign up for such a newsletter)? Subscribe by clicking here.

All families deserve the opportunity to choose schools, whether public or private, that meet their needs and wants. To its credit, Ohio has been a trailblazing state when it comes to supporting private-school choice via state-funded scholarships, a.k.a. “vouchers.” But it might surprise you to learn that hundreds of students are being denied their school of choice simply because Ohio hasn’t yet provided sufficient funds to meet the robust demand for these scholarships. This situation is especially unconscionable because the very students being shut out are those who need the help the most—children from low-income families who face the greatest barriers to getting their top choice of schools. 

Since Ohio’s scholarship programs first began in the fall of 1996, they have helped thousands of families gain access to schools they otherwise couldn’t afford. The chart below, taken from our “Ohio Education By The Numbers” webpage, shows the implementation of the various scholarships, which include programs geared to special-needs students and children slated to attend low-performing district schools. It also reveals an impressive upward trend in participation, with nearly 50,000 students today using one of the state’s five scholarship programs to attend private schools.

​

Starting in 2013–14, Ohio began offering scholarships to low-income students living anywhere in the state. Known as Income Based EdChoice, this program has been phased in by one grade level each year, with fifth graders becoming eligible in 2018–19. Under Governor Mike DeWine’s budget plan, Income Based EdChoice would continue its phase-in with sixth and seventh graders becoming eligible over the next two years. Children from any family with income at or below two times the federal poverty level  ($50,200 for a family of four) are eligible for this scholarship.

Regrettably, the supply of scholarships for Income Based EdChoice hasn’t kept pace with demand. In a budget analysis, the state Legislative Service Commission (LSC) notes: “In recent years, ODE has conducted a lottery for expansion slots [i.e., Income Based EdChoice scholarships] because the available appropriation was not sufficient to meet demand.” Translation: More families applied for scholarships than were available. Hence the need for a lottery to determine which low-income students luck out and who goes home empty handed. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) should, as a matter of practice, publicly disclose how many applicants were denied, but our understanding is that at least 1,000 students applied but did not receive scholarships for the 2018–19 school year. The denials may have been even higher had ODE opened a second application window during the summer.

As indicated by the LSC note, the mismatch in supply and demand is due to insufficient funding. The Income Based EdChoice program is funded through a line-item appropriation in the state budget, and because that amount is fixed, the number of scholarships available is effectively capped. For instance, Governor DeWine proposes a FY 2020 appropriation of $57.2 million, providing enough funding for roughly 13,500 scholarships, or about 2,000 per grade level. (The maximum scholarship is $4,650 for grades K–8.)

As the state budget bill moves through the Senate, legislators should consider ways to ensure that no child is denied a scholarship. There are two possible ways to do this.

1. Increase the line-item appropriation for Income Based EdChoice. This is a straightforward option to support more students seeking scholarships. For instance, adding a modest $5 million per year to the line-item would support another 1,000 scholarships and perhaps meet the demand for Income Based EdChoice. If legislators wanted to maintain cost neutrality, they could make a compensatory budget reduction to the core foundation funding appropriation for school districts, since they are no longer obligated to educate participating students. The downside of this option is that, even with additional funds, scholarship demand may still outpace supply.

2. Fund additional Income Based EdChoice scholarships through the traditional EdChoice mechanism. Legislators could add a provision that makes applicants who are denied an Income Based scholarship eligible to receive a scholarship under the traditional Low Performing Schools EdChoice program. In this scenario, Income Based scholarships—those exceeding the ones awarded under the line-item appropriation—would be funded via deduction from districts’ state foundation aid, the mechanism currently used to fund traditional EdChoice. This option has the potential benefit of fully meeting the demand for Income Based scholarships, as there is ample room under the traditional EdChoice cap due to recent policy changes. It would, however, be a more complicated approach that doesn’t adhere to the notion of direct funding school choice programs. 

Eight years ago, during the debate over lifting the traditional EdChoice cap, my former Fordham colleague Jamie Davies O’Leary raised the incisive question: “What would you personally tell families who got locked out of the voucher lottery?” One possible response is “tough luck.” But that’s no way to answer parents who long for a better choice but are denied just because the lottery balls don’t bounce their way.

To their credit, Ohio legislators have unleashed more school-choice opportunities via Income Based EdChoice. But when unmet demand remains, those opportunities remain illusory for some. Lawmakers should finish the job by providing the funds necessary to support all families—especially our most economically disadvantaged—seeking a private-school choice. No child should be left on the outside looking in.

In downtown Columbus last week, over four hundred business and industry leaders, educators, state policymakers, and advocates convened for Aim Hire, a day-long conference focused on workforce development. The event was hosted by Ohio Excels, a new non-profit coalition of business leaders dedicated to educational improvement, and the Governor’s Office of Workforce Transformation on the heels of the state’s In-Demand Jobs Week. Here’s a look at a few of the big takeaways from the conference.

The big picture

Kyle Hartung, the director of Pathways to Prosperity at Jobs for the Future, opened the event by discussing why improved connections between education and the workforce are so important. One reason is lackluster post-secondary outcomes. At the national level, high school graduation rates are sky high but college completion rates are alarming low. More low-income students are going to college than before, but the percentage who go on to graduate has remained mostly flat. Ohio-specific data aren’t much better. The number of working-age adults who have a postsecondary credential has increased in the last decade, but not at a fast enough rate to satisfy employer demand. In Ohio, 56 percent of in-demand jobs require postsecondary credentials, but only 43 percent of the population have one.

Another reason is technology. The economy and the types of work available are changing rapidly due to automation and other advancements, and in-demand workplace skills are proving difficult to teach in traditional classrooms. Hartung’s solution is to expand access to work-based learning, which allows students to master academic and technical skills in a real-world setting. But he also touted the need for cross sector partnerships between K–12, business and industry, government agencies, colleges, afterschool networks, and community-based organizations. He also noted that two-year colleges could be “the key” to improving attainment, as they serve younger students and adults, are already deeply engaged with employers, and are generally focused on specific regional areas.

Growing opportunities in Ohio’s education sector

Participants on an education-focused panel highlighted several initiatives that are already underway in Ohio, including partnerships between businesses, nonprofits, and education institutions. For example, a Family Career Awareness Day in Marietta gives seventh through twelfth graders the opportunity to learn about careers in their surrounding community, and Tiffin City Schools boasts a college-and-career-readiness program taught by volunteers from the business sector.

Despite this promising work, Ohio struggles to get youngsters onto in-demand pathways, and—not surprisingly—businesses face significant supply shortages. When asked how schools could help solve the supply side of the problem, Pamela Lankford from Building Bridges to Careers explained that student surveys conducted locally over the last ten years indicate that personal experience is the number-one contributing factor for which career students choose to pursue. “If kids don’t get that experience,” she said, “they won’t go down that pathway.” Providing students with the opportunity to participate in multiple career-related experiences and engaging with employers so that they offer those experiences are key.

The responsibility of businesses

Immediately following the education discussion was a panel featuring leaders from a diverse group of businesses. Lana Hillebrand, Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer at AEP, noted that, when it comes to addressing workforce needs, it’s important for employers to be proactive. Businesses have a responsibility to their customers and communities to develop robust talent pipelines, and that means partnering with education institutions so that they can leverage their expertise. When asked about attracting top-tier talent to Ohio, panelists acknowledged that it can be difficult to compete with places like Silicon Valley, New York, and D.C. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Alex Derkson from JPMorgan Chase noted that Ohio has plenty going for it, including an attractive cost of living and great colleges and universities. When prompted for ideas about how smaller businesses could lure talented employees, Derkson pointed out the importance of consortia and partnerships, which can “share the work” of identifying solutions. 

A changing state demands changing policies

Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted was also in attendance, and he didn’t mince words about the importance of workforce development. “The future of our state and our economy depends on it,” he said. “Over the next ten years in Ohio, demographic projections say that we will lose more people from our workforce than we will gain. More people will turn sixty-five than will turn eighteen. We have the challenge to make sure that the people who follow have the right kind of skills…and the states that do this right will be the ones that prosper.” He pointed out that the economy has shifted from focusing on natural resources and proximity to prioritizing knowledge, which “can exist anywhere. It’s not bound by geographic barriers.” To address this change and its implications for the future, the new administration is focusing on early childhood education, wraparound services, and industry-recognized credentials.

Partnerships for the future

Eric Burkland, President of the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, offered up a succinct analysis of why workforce development is so important: “We are facing right now a set of interactive, global trends that nobody prepared us for in manufacturing and other professions. I don’t think we think too much about how new this globalization is. But it is new…so it’s creating all kinds of strains and all kinds of uncertainties. But those pressures are also a great opportunity.”

Several on-the-ground partnerships are already taking advantage of these opportunities. Jessica Borza, Executive Director of the Mahoning Valley Manufacturing Coalition, spoke about how her members have worked with both K–12 and postsecondary institutions to leverage industry-recognized credentials. She explained that, in the past, career centers used vastly different standards and curricula, so employers struggled to find graduates who had similar skill sets and competencies. But by aligning curricula, apprenticeships, work-based learning opportunities, and other offerings with industry-recognized credentials, the coalition has been able to establish better alignment between systems and ensure that student skills are validated. Even better, students have the opportunity to earn the same amount of college credit regardless of where they earn their credential.

***

Overall, the conference struck a nice balance between celebrating what’s worked so far and acknowledging that the state still has plenty of room for improvement. Perhaps the biggest takeaway of the day came from David Harrison, President of Columbus State Community College and the Central Ohio Compact. He advised conference attendees to maintain a bias toward intentional action. “This is messy work,” he said. “But students need us to figure this out. So jump in and get started.”