1. The topic of Academic Distress Commissions was on the table at yesterday’s meeting of the state board of education. I have been tinkering with the wording of the headline to the PD’s coverage of the discussion just a smidge. See what you think: “State school district takeovers bring too many challenges to work…” vs. “State school district takeovers are being challenged too much to work as intended…”. The first one is credited to state supe Paolo DeMaria and is an accurate representation of what he testified to yesterday. I prefer the second one, of course, but only because I say it all the time. I am the only one saying it, I imagine, and it’ll be a cold day on Klom before anyone’s quoting me in a real headline. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 3/12/19) Here is coverage of the same testimony from closer to the home base of one of the districts currently operating under the aegis of an Academic Distress Commission. It comes complete with a quote for us to parse: “I think the sheer effort required to try to overcome the natural acrimony and dissension that’s created by House Bill 70 has created the conditions where even the best-intentioned individuals are challenged to try to make progress,” [DeMaria] said. “I think the plans, and frankly in Youngstown in particular, had a lot going for it, but I think as the realities of implementation began to set in became really challenging to make the change that’s required. Because that’s what I think a lot of people forget — change is part of it … but if it’s change, we all know the best way to actually help change be created and successfully implemented is to work together; and if you simply can’t engineer by virtue of the obstacles that are created that kind of collaboration, then you’re not likely to achieve success.” But instead of parsing it in detail (“How tedious!” I can hear all six of you shouting), I will instead tell you about my literary habits: I have been reading the autobiography “The Education of Eva Moskowitz” lately. It is excellent. In it, among other things, the founder of the Harlem Success Academy charter schools tells of her battles with those well-known staunch defenders of the status quo: the United Federation of Teachers. Moskowitz recounts numerous instances where UFT—surely also a set of “best-intentioned individuals”—whipped up protest and spread rumors and asked questions and ginned up support against HSA, then got plenty of media coverage of this “chaos” whether it was actually real or not, and then helped provide city council and state legislators with great ideas to quell that chaos. All of which would end up maintaining the status quo or at least knee-capping HSA fairly effectively if passed. Good book. Wish it were fiction. (Elyria Chronicle, 3/13/19) In probably-unrelated news, I hear that the guy who developed the time-out for unruly toddlers is sticking by its usefulness and positive effects on behavior.

2. Here is a little more on the state board’s discussion over new graduation requirements. (Dayton Daily News, 3/11/19) The board voted 14-1 to recommend the legislature adopt the expanded non-academic graduation pathways (with their shiny veneer of bureaucratic compliance) forever more. (Columbus Dispatch, 3/12/19)

3. You may have noticed, in this week’s stories about the state board’s delightful deliberations, referenced to a new non-profit organization advocating for education quality and school choice from the perspective of Ohio’s business community. Nice. Here is a bit more detail about Ohio Excels. (WCPO-TV, Cincinnati, 3/12/19)

4. Speaking of school choice, here is the ostensibly heartwarming tale of a school district in Richland County whose reps speak rhapsodically about a new collaboration they have entered into with a service provider for students with autism in order to better serve those students. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But the constant talk in this piece by district reps about “our money” and “keeping it here” and how “we’re not competing for kids and money anymore” gives me the creeps and a weary sense of déjà vu. YMMV. (Richland Source, 3/13/19)

5. In a couple of other Capital Square tidbits: The General Assembly’s Joint Committee on E-School Funding held what I believe is its final meeting this week. Leaders say that they have “several key decisions to make” before they submit a final report. (Gongwer Ohio, 3/11/19) From the “better late than never” department (actual quote, folks): the state board this week heard arguments from the traditional district school establishment monolith regarding some school transportation rules up for discussion. Did I mention that I’m reading Eva Moskowitz’s autobiography? So good. So…relatable. (Gongwer Ohio, 3/11/19)

6. All my loyal Gadfly Bites subscribers (Hi, Peter. Seriously, dude: thanks for reading!) will likely recognize that I am on the Cynicism Express today. How else to explain why I am about to rubbish the vaunted institution of the Parent Teacher Organization? Dayton City Schools this week announced an effort to create a sort of UrPTO whose job is ostensibly to create a bunch more little PTOs in schools across the district. The theme this week, then, is self-replicating bureaucracy. Perhaps that’s why I’m cranky. Or because I figure that the ultimate job of the UrPTO will be to keep the little PTOs in line when the mother ship signals. (Dayton Daily News, 3/13/19)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox (in case you want to jump onto my train of thought by signing up for such a newsletter)? Subscribe by clicking here.

In theory, private schools are better positioned to provide moral education than are their public counterparts because they can tailor character lessons to those who choose to attend. A new study from Corey A. DeAngelis and Patrick J. Wolf seeks to test that theory, examining the adult behavior and criminal activity of individuals who once participated in Milwaukee’s school voucher program. They find that, indeed, former voucher students now have lighter criminal records, and are caught up in fewer paternity disputes, than their public school counterparts.

The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) is the nation’s oldest citywide voucher program, started in 1990 and expanded repeatedly since then. Unlike in other systems, MPCP students first enroll in a private school of their choice and then apply for a voucher from the city. By the 2014–2015 school year, 25 percent of Milwaukee’s students were participating in MPCP. The eligible income levels have also changed periodically; in the 2006 cohort, which this study covers, participating families could not have earnings that exceeded 175 percent of the poverty line.

To study the non-cognitive effects of MPCP, DeAngelis and Wolf compared eighth and ninth grade voucher students to similar public school students, matching characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, initial test score, and neighborhood of residence. They then examined Wisconsin Court System records for each matched student, counting ten types of offenses including felonies, misdemeanors, drug offenses, and property damage. It should be noted that one crime might fall into more than one of these categories; for example, a property damage charge may also be a misdemeanor, in which case the authors counted the crime twice. They also tallied involvement in paternity lawsuits, which can be seen as a proxy for irresponsible behavior.

Overall, DeAngelis and Wolf find that participation in MPCP is correlated with a reduction in nearly all of these criminal and antisocial behavioral measures. In their preferred model of analysis, the largest drop was in property damage convictions, which were 86 percent lower among MPCP students, or 8 percent of a standard deviation. Drug convictions fell by 53 percent, and paternity suits fell by 38 percent.

As they expected, the researchers identified a stronger effect on crime rates for males than for females. However, female involvement in paternity suits dropped substantially—34 percent—as well. Students with varying baseline test scores also experienced different outcomes. For example, those students with high initial reading scores experienced a $200 reduction in total criminal fines, while those with low reading scores actually saw a slight increase in fines. Students with high math scores experienced a significant drop in theft and traffic offenses, while low math scorers experienced a significantly larger reduction in paternity suits, but not in other criminal charges as the authors predicted.

Despite varying results across all eleven categories, DeAngelis and Wolf conclude that, overall, MPCP students demonstrated “equal or better” character skills over time, up to twelve years after their participation. The dramatic reductions in property and drug offenses and in paternity lawsuits are certainly the most encouraging results.

Like most investigations into the effects of school choice, this study cannot entirely control for the unobservable differences between students that might lead to different outcomes, although they suggest that by matching students living in the same neighborhood, they partially account for characteristics like motivation and values. Moreover, the authors examine only one cohort of students from 2006; it would be helpful to understand whether these results are consistent between classes and over time.

And ultimately, while more research on school choice and its effects on crime is necessary, the low bar of “not committing crimes” or “not being a deadbeat dad” should not be our only expectation from moral education. It is an important start, but further inquiry into socially beneficial behaviors like charitable donations and community service will also be valuable in completing our view of moral education in private and charter schools.

SOURCE: Corey A. DeAngelis and Patrick J. Wolf, “Private School choice and Character: More Evidence from Milwaukee,” Department of Education Reform, Working Paper Series, University of Arkansas (February 2019).

In an article published on March 5, Bill Bush of the Columbus Dispatch wrote that Columbus City Schools plans to target key areas of their state report card where “modest gains could push grades up” and “help avoid state takeover.”

For those unfamiliar with what “state takeover” means in Ohio, the phrase refers to Academic Distress Commissions (ADCs)—a mechanism in state law for intervening in low-performing school districts that was first put into law in 2005 and significantly strengthened in 2015. Since the updated policy took effect, there has been no shortage of drama. That’s largely because the law includes provisions that lessen the power of the local school board, empower an ADC-appointed CEO, and offer opportunities for expanded school choice—policies that are anathema to those who prioritize the status quo above all else. Political infighting has dominated the turnaround efforts in both Youngstown and Lorain, the two districts that have been under the auspices of an ADC after decades—yes, decades—of poor academic performance. Meanwhile, districts that are teetering on the brink of state control are suing, complaining, and objecting like their lives depend on it. And in many ways they do. ADC control changes which adults get to call the shots.    

There are some valid questions being raised about how to improve the current ADC model. The Ohio Department of Education’s hands-off approach hasn’t worked well thus far. The department’s involvement has been limited to the state superintendent appointing three members of the ADC and the commission chair. That’s vastly different from the strategy of states like Massachusetts, where turnaround efforts have been more successful. Having two governing bodies—the local school board and the ADC—in place and at odds isn’t helping, and neither is the lack of rigorous, empirical research into what’s happening on the ground. Any sort of nuanced debate about what’s happening and how to improve it has gotten lost amidst media theatrics and adults squabbling over power. So, too, has the reason why ADCs were created in the first place: Students deserve to attend high-quality schools, and the state has an obligation to intervene when students aren’t being served well.

Which brings us back to the article from the Dispatch. It’s noted that one of Superintendent Talisa Dixon’s strategies for boosting Columbus City Schools’ overall grade is to focus on the five-year graduation rate. Specifically, the district will “zero in on providing additional support to 125 students who should have graduated last year, but repeated twelfth grade and can still graduate this summer.” Comments from the district’s chief accountability officer, Machelle Kline, offer additional context: “Some students need credits. Some students just need tests. Some students need internship hours. We have one kid who’s completely done, just doesn’t have their internship hours. Can you imagine how silly that is?”

It is silly. It’s silly that these 125 students are about to be inundated with support just because they’re the district’s last hope for avoiding a takeover. Where was the guidance, remediation, and intervention these students needed during their first twelve years in the system? If Columbus City Schools wasn’t in danger of being taken over by the state, would the district still be “zeroing in” on these students to make sure they graduate?

Similar questions can be asked of other districts that are hurtling toward an ADC designation and have responded by ramping up their efforts (finally) to serve kids better. In Dayton, the focus has been on high-quality professional development for its teachers. In Trotwood-Madison, the district proactively implemented aspects of an ADC-style turnaround plan and successfully staved off an academic distress designation by boosting just a few measures on their state report card. Would these efforts have occurred with the same urgency and intensity if the threat of accountability wasn’t looming? Or would districts have bemoaned their low scores in public, philosophized about the fairness of their rating, and then continued on with business as usual?

Warts and all, the ADC process is succeeding in prodding districts like Columbus City Schools, Trotwood-Madison, and others to do what’s right by kids, and that’s what school accountability policies are all about. They’re designed to incentivize districts to carefully consider data on student outcomes and then improve for the sake of kids.

It’s okay to disagree about the nuts and bolts of ADCs. There can and should be a debate about the method of intervention. But there should be no question about the necessity of accountability mechanisms that encourage struggling districts to improve. Students in those places deserve the very best and nothing less.  

1. In case you missed it last week, the USDOE touted a tax credit program proposal that would, if enacted, boost private school options for students in any state willing and able to participate. Our own Chad Aldis weighed in on the proposal; he is the only one quoted here not immediately condemning it. (Gongwer Ohio, 3/8/19)

2. Ohio’s War on Knowing Stuff formally opens its 2019 ground offensive this week when the state board of education debates the future of graduation requirements. Again. The weak, non-test pathways which are the softening-up barrage of the war will of course going be recommended heartily, Jeremy Kelley tells us. But there is a twist. These things are so bad that several layers of top-heavy, compliance-based, make-work, bureaucratic BS which our fearless leaders have apparently added to them will actually make them better. (Dayton Daily News, 3/11/19)

3. What do editors in Lima opine is “a dark cloud hovering over an unsuspecting city”? The possibility of the school district falling into academic distress. Not the years of crappy report cards that lead to such a designation, mind you, just the Academic Distress Commission paradigm itself. You know: one of the other fronts in the War on Knowing Stuff. (Lima News, 3/9/19) Folks in Lorain (well, just one folk) are looking forward to a new bill coming this week which would supposedly stop the academic distress paradigm in its tracks. (Fox 8 News, Cleveland, 3/10/19) I came out of this piece from the Chronicle none the wiser about the relationship among poverty, funding, and student achievement, despite the fact that that was the point of the piece and of the presentation it was covering. The only thing that was clear to me was that the speaker believes that ADCs mean charter schools and the reporter went along with that assertion. (Elyria Chronicle, 3/9/19)

4. Meanwhile, on the editorial page of the Dispatch, a tiny glimmer of hope… (Columbus Dispatch, 3/9/19) 
5. In other news, Liberty Local School District reported a sizeable boost in enrollment from last school year to this. You will recall that Liberty caused a stir toward the end of last school year by trying to ban resident students from leaving the district via open enrollment (first only white student departures were banned, then all student departures were banned after an outcry adverse legal opinion). This was all due to concern for the district’s racial balance. Liberty’s supe says this year’s boost is due “in part” to local students returning from open enrollment in other districts. But the data provided here seems to indicate status quo: Tons of kids from outside Liberty open enrolling in the district and not a shred of detail on where they are coming from or their demographic breakdown. (Youngstown Vindicator, 3/11/19)

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

The new study from the Harvard Center for Education Policy Research was clearly a herculean effort, with data collection across six states, surveys of thousands of teachers, and the participation of some of the nation’s leading researchers. And its conclusion is an important if disappointing one to “curriculum reform” advocates like me: Overall, it found no variation in student achievement gains associated with the choice of elementary school math textbooks.

As the authors write, perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised by its null findings. After all, most teachers reported receiving just a few days of professional development on the math programs they were assigned, and say they are supplementing it with materials they find online. Plus, it’s possible that math textbooks have become more similar in the post–Common Core era. Given that, the results make sense.

However, it’s important to understand that the study could not, and did not, address some of the most important questions related to the potential power of curriculum reform. Namely:

• Does the adoption and effective implementation of a strong curriculum lead teachers, and/or schools, to become more effective over time?
• Does the impact vary by type of teacher and/or type of school? For example, is curriculum choice and implementation more important for lower performing teachers and schools than for higher performing ones?

These questions are important because they address the hypothesis that many of us curriculum reformers would propose. It’s not that we think curriculum choice is the most important driver of student achievement; the research clearly shows that teacher effectiveness deserves that honor, at least among the things that schools can control. But, as David Steiner, Jacqueline Magee, and Ben Jensen recently wrote in in a literature review on the topic, “The research is increasingly clear that quality curriculum matters to student achievement.” We do suspect that a great curriculum that’s aligned with standards, designed with teachers, and usable in real classrooms can indeed help teachers become more effective. At least if—and this is a big “if”—those teachers receive lots of training, support, coaching, and feedback regarding how to implement the program with their own students. Most likely, we argue, such an approach will help the newest and weakest teachers the most, thus raising the floor and shrinking the gap between the most and least effective teachers.

Alas, there was no way this study could address those questions directly because doing so would require more years of data than the scholars had access to (plus data on teachers they did not have), more schools that changed textbooks during the study period, information about when those changes took place, and lots more insight into the implementation effort.

More years of data would have allowed the researchers to calculate a reliable measure of school effectiveness before and after a change in curriculum. (Same for teacher effectiveness, if they could get those data, too.) Ideally, that would mean at least three years on either side of the change, or six years total. Eventually, we may have that long of a trend line in the post–Common Core assessment era, but we don’t have it yet.

But then we also have to find a whole bunch of schools that switched textbooks. Researchers only had data about textbook switches in California. It’s possible that more schools (and districts) will make changes as time goes on, when adoption cycles come around or new books are published. If so, this part should be more feasible in the future, too.

And we need much better information about which textbooks schools are using—information that states could start collecting regularly, like California does.

There’s no doubt that the all-star roster of researchers did the most with the data they had. But we will need even better data to answer the most important questions—and for those we will have to wait.

One of the defining characteristics of Ohio’s graduation debate is a lack of data. Back in 2017, when the State Board of Education first suggested weakening graduation requirements, its recommendations were made without clear and detailed data indicating a need for such sweeping changes. Even worse, the alternatives they endorsed included non-academic measures such as work or community service experience and 93 percent attendance during senior year. When these weakened alternatives were made into law for the class of 2018, it marked the first time in twenty-five years that Ohio students could earn a diploma without demonstrating some level of objective academic competence. 

Almost a year and a half later—six months after the class of 2018 walked across the stage—the Ohio legislature passed a bill that extended the weakened requirements to the classes of 2019 and 2020. At the time of the vote, the public still didn’t know how many students in the class of 2018 used the alternative pathways to graduate. It wasn’t until the December state board meeting—a few days after the legislature approved the extension—that data about students using the alternative graduation pathways were released. This delay was unfortunate, as it could have informed the debate and may have ultimately swayed some votes.

These data show the percentage of students in each district who graduated by meeting one of the original three pathways—end of course (EOC) exam points, remediation-free ACT or SAT scores, or industry-recognized credentials—or one of two additional pathways that were labelled “Option 1” and “Option 2.” Option 2 was limited to students in career-technical programs, but option 1 included the weakened alternative measures and was available to all students.

The table below lists the twenty districts with the highest percentage of students using option 1 to graduate in 2018. It also includes the percentage of students using option 2 and each of the three original pathways. It’s important to note that among the original pathways, some students met multiple ones and thus are included in more than one column. For instance, a student who met both the EOC and remediation-free requirements would be included in both statistics. The percentages listed for options 1 and 2, on the other hand, are mutually exclusive; students who are reported as having met these options met only one of those two pathways and not any of the original three.

We can draw a few conclusions from these data. First, all of these districts had at least a fourth of their graduating class take advantage of the weakened alternatives to graduate. Some of them—like Fairland Local and Wellston City—had a majority of their students demonstrate basic academic competency by passing EOC exams. But other districts, like Cleveland Municipal and East Cleveland, had more students graduate using the alternative pathways than they had students passing state exams. When considering these numbers, it’s important to remember that students do not need to score proficient on all of the exams to use them to graduate. In fact, it’s mathematically possible for a student to fail to earn proficiency on all four math and English EOCs and still earn enough points to graduate.

Second, some districts will likely see significant increases to their graduation rates because of the high number of students who took advantage of the weak alternatives. Since the state accountability system calculates grades for the graduation rate component on a one year delay, increases for the class of 2018 would result in improved graduation rate grades on 2018–19 school report cards. Check it out:

Based on these projections, only one of the twenty districts will earn a lower graduation rate component grade in 2018–19: New Boston Local, which may drop from an A to a B. Seven districts will see no change in their grades. But twelve districts could get higher grades this year than they did last year. Seven of those twelve will rise from an F to a passing grade, and at least two districts—Maple Heights and Trotwood-Madison—will jump from a D to a B. Since the graduation rate component counts for 15 percent of a district’s overall grade, a suddenly higher graduation rate grade could mean that some of these districts avoid overall Fs—which could help them sidestep being placed under the authority of an academic distress commission.

The outsized impact of these watered down requirements on school report cards should give lawmakers pause. Several of the districts with dramatically higher graduation numbers have a history of much lower rates, so it will be tempting to celebrate the higher figures as signs of growth. Doing so would be a mistake. The only reason many of these districts will have higher rates is because the state codified much easier graduation pathways into law. Lowering the bar and getting better results is not cause for celebration, and it’s not good policy. The basis of good policy and meaningful school improvement is data that are both honest and timely. So far, Ohioans haven’t been given either.

Editor’s Note: Back in September 2018, awaiting the election of our next governor, we at the Fordham Institute began developing a set of policy proposals that we believe can lead to increased achievement and greater opportunities for Ohio students. This is one of those policy proposals.

With Mike DeWine sworn in as Ohio’s 70th governor, and with his administration now well underway, we are proud to roll out the full set of our education policy proposals. You can download the full document, titled Fulfilling the Readiness Promise: Twenty-five education policy ideas for Ohio, at this link, or you can access the individual policy proposals from the links provided here.

Proposal: Create an incentive fund to encourage traditional districts, regional joint-vocational centers, charter and STEM schools, or community and technical colleges (via dual enrollment) to help high school students earn credentials in high-demand careers. The fund should provide additional dollars to schools or colleges based on the number of students who accumulate credentials for in-demand fields before graduating.

Background: The State Board of Education currently approves dozens of industry-recognized credentials across thirteen career fields, such as agriculture, health care, hospitality and tourism, and manufacturing. Students can earn credentials through their local schools, at regional joint-vocational centers, through an apprenticeship, or through dual high school/college enrollment. Each credential is assigned a certain number of points—up to twelve for the most demanding certification programs and one for the least intensive. Third-party organizations, such as professional associations or industry groups, issue these credentials when students meet certain requirements. For example, students can earn an HVAC credential issued by the Air Conditioning Contractors of America; a medical-assistant credential issued by the American Medical Certification Association; or an IT routing and switching credential issued by Cisco. According to the most recent state data, few students earn such credentials: although these data predate the new state graduation requirements, less than 5 percent of Ohio’s graduating classes of 2015 and 2016 left high school with industry credentials (that is, earned credentials worth a total of at least twelve points). With 40 percent of young people not entering college directly after high school, many graduates are left to pursue employment without credentials that could open job opportunities and help them advance in their careers. Earning certifications in high school can also benefit college-going students, who can use them when they begin to pursue full-time employment.

Proposal rationale: Industry-recognized credentials are a win-win for students and employers. Students benefit by gaining technical skills and earning credentials that signify their employability; businesses also benefit from better-trained employees, particularly at entry-level positions. Yet Ohio has too many young people leaving high school (and college, too) who enter the job market without technical skills or recognized credentials. By providing financial incentives, as Colorado and Wisconsin have done, state leaders would encourage more students to gain certifications in Ohio’s most in-demand careers.

Cost: This could be accomplished by providing $8 million per year for this incentive program. Schools would receive $1,000 for each student who completes an in-demand industry credential. Incentive dollars would be awarded until they were gone.

Resources: For information about industry-recognized credentials, see ODE’s “Industry-Recognized Credentials,” and for a list of careers that Ohio considers in demand, see Ohio Means Jobs’ “In-Demand Careers.” For examples of states with incentive programs linked to industry certifications, see the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s “CTE Technical Incentive Grants” and the Colorado Department of Education’s “Career Success Pilot Program.”

1. Editors in Toledo opined this week against Ohio’s new(ish) academic distress paradigm, mainly because the city schools are one bad report card away from experiencing it firsthand. Their reasoning: “the state’s cure looks as if it would be worse than what ails” Toledo City Schools. Hmmm… Cute phrase. I should remember it. (Toledo Blade, 3/7/19)

2. Of course the ones who are really “ailing” in Toledo are the students and the families attending poor performing schools. Same same for students and families in Columbus City Schools. That district is two bad report cards away from a designation of academic distress (and all that goes along with it) and a new superintendent is riding into the storm. She will probably be hearing from a lot of folks about how “unfair” and “punitive” and “embarrassing” the academic distress paradigm would be for the district. But those folks are going to have to get in line behind district parents, some of whom want a reduction (right NOW) in the level of violence and disruption in their children’s classrooms…   (WSYX-TV, Columbus, 3/7/19) …and some of whom want a reduction in the apparently excessive amount of teacher absences across the district, a topic which seems to have expanded in scope since we last broached it. Talk about embarrassing. (WOSU-FM, Columbus, 3/7/19)

3. Meanwhile, I think the development of college and career academies in Akron City Schools may have hit its limit…or perhaps jumped the shark. You see, I can understand an academy sponsored by Firestone that teaches auto repair and mechanics. I can understand an academy sponsored by the local hospital conglomerate teaching medical science and technology. But when the National Park Service sponsors an academy teaching media and marketing, I am reasonably certain you’ve either run out of partners, or useful academy themes, or both. (Akron Beacon Journal, 3/8/19)

4. We end today where we began: on Frogtown’s editorial page. Today, the associate editor opined on the topic of the city using sports gambling money—currently under consideration in the General Assembly for legalization—to fund pre-K in Toledo. I can’t tell if he’s for or against the idea, so craftily is his piece written, but if the local school district is seriously considering using the proceeds from pot sales to boost its own bottom line, I say why not let all the governing units get a hit off the sweet source of that vice money. Or perhaps that “cure” is worse than the “ailment”, eh? (Toledo Blade, 3/8/19)

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

Charter school leaders call for more money for charters

Facing large funding discrepancies compared to local districts, charter leaders across the state are calling for state officials to give charter school students additional support in the upcoming state budget. Plain Dealer reporter Patrick O’Donnell has the story interviewing leaders on both sides of the issue.

Columbus charter founder counters funding claims

On Monday, the Columbus Dispatch published a letter to the editor from Andrew Boy, founder and CEO of the United Schools Network. Boy, writing in response to a February letter from Stephen Dyer suggesting charters receive more funding per pupil than districts, explains that charters do the same tough job as districts but with significantly less funding.

Richard Allen Schools under examination

The Dayton Daily News published an in-depth piece this week on the controversy surrounding Richard Allen Schools, its Superintendent Michelle Thomas (who is part of a group that owes the state $2.2 million), and its former management company, the Institute of Management and Resources. Upon hearing that the schools are still under the control of Thomas, Senate Education Chair Peggy Lehner said, “I find this information extremely troubling, and I, along with a number of other entities within the state, will continue to look into this.”

Legislative update

Education issues were mostly quiet this week at the Statehouse. That’ll change next week when Governor DeWine is expected to introduce his budget. Bills were recently introduced to require schools to forward student records within five days when a student transfers, allow teachers to take a state income tax credit for purchasing school supplies, and prohibit districts from reducing student transportation mid-year. None of the newly introduced bills had bill hearings this week.

School Performance Institute workshop

Are you a school leader interested in helping your team to build their capacity to lead and implement change? Then you should check out the School Performance Institute’s upcoming workshops on March 28th and April 12th. You’ll have an opportunity to visit a high-performing charter school during a school day (to observe how the school has been purposefully designed to get results in a high-poverty context using proven methods) and discuss concrete ways to apply these ideas in your own school. You can register here, if interested, or contact John A. Dues for more information.

Governor Mike DeWine is expected to release his biennial budget proposal next week, which will include his plan to fund education. On the campaign trail—and during his short time in office—DeWine has dropped relatively few hints about his agenda for K–12 education. Apart from pledges to increase spending on early childhood programs, there’s not much that would help us predict the details of his education budget. With that in mind, I’ll be diving into these key (albeit wonky) questions when he unveils his proposals.

Will there be changes to the school funding formula?

Under former Governor John Kasich, Ohio wisely moved away from an input-driven funding formula to a more conventional approach predicated on pupil enrollment, district wealth, and weights for children with special needs. To ensure a fair distribution of state aid, Kasich’s formula relies heavily on the “state share index” (SSI). The SSI computations take into account districts’ incomes and property values, yielding results that generally direct more aid to lower-wealth districts. Although a certain level of complexity is needed to fairly split the tab between the state and local districts, there may be some room to streamline the SSI without compromising its ability to drive money to where it’s most needed. In a preview of the much anticipated Cupp-Patterson funding report, it appears that some legislators are concerned about the intricacies of the SSI and might be open to modifications that produce a simpler, more predictable formula. Governor DeWine, however, has said little about the funding formula. It’ll be worth watching whether he proposes any tweaks to the SSI—or puts forward an entirely different distribution model. 

More money for high-poverty schools...but with strings attached?

In his State of the State address, Governor DeWine promised:

We are going to direct significant state resources to Ohio’s most-in-need children to help them overcome the barriers and disadvantages of poverty and trauma...and that is why—through targeted funding in my budget—these kids will receive additional resources for mentoring, after-school programs, wrap-around services, health care, mental health care, and much, much more.

Clearly, there will be more funding for schools and other providers that serve needy children—and that’s praiseworthy. More interesting, however, will be how these targeted funds are disbursed to schools. Will it be more money-driven through the funding formula itself? For instance, there is an existing component that provides public schools with additional funds based on economically disadvantaged student enrollments. DeWine’s plan could simply boost those amounts. Another possibility is a targeted grant program that is open to high-poverty schools. But either way, DeWine seems to suggest that strings might be attached; note his remarks about specific uses for these funds like mentoring or after-school programs. If indeed there are restrictions, what might those look like? Will high-poverty districts, for example, be obligated to spend these dollars in certain ways, or will they have greater spending flexibility? And what about high-poverty charter schools?

Will funding caps and guarantees be addressed?

Rightly so, one of Governor Kasich’s school funding goals was to remove “caps and guarantees.” As a quick refresher: The cap limits the yearly growth in state funding that districts receive, while a guarantee ensures that a district doesn’t receive less in state aid compared to some prior year. Because these policies result in many districts receiving amounts that differ from the formula, the Kasich administration argued time and again that these policies gave too much money to some districts and stiffed others. Unfortunately, the administration’s efforts to remove caps and guarantees were largely unsuccessful. Both policies are difficult to unwind for various reasons: Although they are likely losing enrollments, districts on the guarantee are apt to complain about cuts to their state funding. Meanwhile, removing caps poses budgetary challenges for the state because it would cost hundreds of millions to provide full-formula funding to capped districts. Whether Governor DeWine will support eliminating caps and guarantees is unclear. But if he does, it’ll be interesting to see how his administration tries to navigate the potholes that have derailed previous attempt to scrap these policies.

Will public charter schools finally receive equitable funding?

In contrast to Governor Kasich, who once called school choice a “civil right,” Governor DeWine has been relatively quiet on the school choice front. That’s prudent given the ongoing political attacks on charters and the bruising battle to close ECOT. But DeWine has pledged to create a “more equitable funding system,” which should certainly include public charter schools just the same as school districts. Sadly, however, much work remains to fund charters equitably. As we at Fordham have documented, urban brick-and-mortar charter schools remain egregiously underfunded—receiving roughly $4,000 per student less than their nearby districts—all while delivering an arguably better education than students’ district alternatives. Will his budget rectify these massive funding shortfalls? One hopes the answer is yes.

* * *

It’s hard to know how the DeWine administration will handle important matters such as these. But if history is our guide, we can at least predict two reactions to his proposals. First, the focus will inevitably be on the “winners and losers,” without much context about why districts might receive more or less compared to prior years. Indeed, some districts may receive less state aid simply because of declining enrollments, while others, like those in Central Ohio, receive more as their student bodies swell. Second, no matter the amount of funding dedicated to K–12 education, there will be interest groups decrying that it’s not enough. To paraphrase Michael Buffer, let’s get ready to grumble.