(This is a long-form article that we've hosted on an external website. Read it here.)

1. Following up on Monday’s big news: How did Secretary DeVos’ visit to Northwest Ohio go? Seems pretty good, but it’s hard to tell from this piece, which is more about protestors for some reason. Even Penta Career Center gets shortchanged here. (Toledo Blade, 7/9/18)
    
2. There was a state board of education meeting this week. Among other things, members voted unanimously to boost the cut score for passage on the third grade reading test a little bit higher. (Gongwer Ohio, 7/10/18) Also, the board declined to move forward with recommendations for changes to state report cards until at least September. And everyone seems cool with it. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/10/18)
    
3. Speaking of report cards, one huge aspect of those, of course, are test scores. Jeremy Kelley says that preliminary test scores are out to districts and schools already and that things are generally looking very positive. Final data is still to be tabulated and reported back, but early indications are that proficiency rates improved in 18 of 21 major testing areas – this despite the fact that tests are more rigorous than they have ever been. Sounds like kudos may be in order. (Dayton Daily News, 7/11/18) Speaking of kudos with caveats, some initial data suggests that the new freshman academies in Youngstown’s high schools are producing the hoped for positive results in terms of grade promotion. I’m going to need to see more hard numbers from Captain Mohip and crew before I’m convinced, but fingers crossed that they are right. (WKBN-TV, Youngstown, 7/10/18)
    
4. We got a look this week at some of Canton City Schools’ spending priorities for next year. They are heavily tilted toward non-academic issues, including nearly $2 million in new hiring to address issues related to learning climate, behavior, and chronic absenteeism. (Canton Repository, 7/9/18)
    
5. Speaking of money, the state auditor this week warned schools across the state of the dangers of crowdfunding for supplies and projects. Granted, these are dangers that perhaps only an auditor could fully appreciate, but I think it’s safe to say that if the official in charge of looking over your books tells you to watch out for certain things, you can be sure that he will be watching out for it even if you’re not. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/10/18)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

There has been much debate in education policy circles of late about whether it’s appropriate for states and charter authorizers to base school-accountability actions solely upon the performance ratings derived from states’ ESSA accountability frameworks.

We—and our organization—strongly favor the framework-based approach. States should take care, however, to ensure that their frameworks accurately measure the performance of all types of schools. Research recently conducted at Pearson indicates that accountability framework gauges can be inaccurate when applied to schools with high levels of student mobility.

How come? It’s due to the well documented "school switching" phenomenon. When students move to new schools, they often experience a one- to three-year dip in academic achievement simply because of the school change.  

That’s why studies of school choice programs tend to show short-term performance declines, then positive effects starting around the third year. It takes a while to overcome the negative academic impact that is often caused by switching to a different school. Data from the Connections Academy virtual schools supported by Pearson confirm this effect: Student performance on state assessments improves with each successive year after the student enrolls.

It's not hard to see why the school-switching effect distorts accountability framework measures for schools with much pupil mobility. If a large proportion of a school’s students are new, and therefore can be expected to have scanty or even negative academic growth in a given year, arising from the simple fact that they’re in their first year in that school, this will distort proficiency rates and have an even greater effect on measures of academic growth.

That’s almost certainly part of the reason that virtual schools receive low ratings on many state frameworks. In any given year in the Connections Academy network of virtual schools, for example, 55 percent of students are in their first year of enrollment. State gauges show mobility at traditional schools to be less than half this level.

The most oft-cited research on virtual school performance is the 2015 CREDO study, which compared the academic growth of students in virtual schools to that of their “matched twins” in traditional brick-and-mortar settings. If the Connections Academy data are representative, more than half the virtual school students in the CREDO sample were likely first-year pupils. It is hardly surprising that CREDO’s results showed far lower growth for the virtual students compared to their “matched twins.”

CREDO acknowledged that its study did not include mobility as a matching criterion because the relevant data were not available. (Their matched twins did have similar levels of prior mobility, which is not the same thing.)

Why do virtual schools have such high student mobility? As the Pearson research cited above shows, such schools are often used by parents and students to address specific short-term problems, such as medical challenges and bullying issues, which can only be met with a home-based, flexible learning environment. Add to this the fact that, as long as the virtual sector is growing, it will continue have a higher percentage of new students.

Since pretty much all of the states’ new ESSA accountability frameworks include measures of academic growth, every school with high student mobility is likely to receive an artificially low rating due to the school switching effect. This will not be limited to virtual schools. Large urban districts often have much pupil mobility, too, so the school switching effect will depress their ESSA framework ratings as well.

As part of Pearson’s long-term commitment to understanding the efficacy of its products and services, we analyzed the performance of Connections Academy schools compared to traditional schools, and we used mobility as one of the matching criteria. We found that, once mobility is factored in appropriately, Connections Academy students perform the same as brick-and-mortar students.

The research is available at Pearson’s Efficacy web site. Yes, our organization has an obvious interest in virtual schools, but this study’s conclusions were peer reviewed by SRI International, and the validity of the data was verified by PriceWaterhouseCooper. We are happy to provide the technical notes to anyone interested.

The implication is not that framework-based accountability is invalid or that framework ratings should be dismissed. Rather, it is that accountability systems must take student mobility into account if they’re to accurately measure school performance and school effectiveness. There are a variety of ways to do this.

For example, frameworks should report proficiency and growth for all students, and also include separate proficiency and growth metrics for students who are in their second year, as well as separate data for students in their third year and beyond. This would help isolate the school’s performance from the effect of mobility, which it cannot control.

Frameworks should also look at high school graduation rates differently. At the very least, they should adopt the Fordham proposal of allocating students to school cohorts based on the percentage of their high school years spent in a given school.

The framework score should be thought of as analogous to an X-ray. If it shows a potential problem, there should be further diagnostics—the equivalent of a CT scan to see if the X-ray might be giving a false signal due to student mobility.

If further analysis shows that the school does indeed have a high level of student mobility, then it is time for the MRI: Other data should be analyzed to confirm or dismiss what the framework showed. What are the growth and proficiency rates of second- and third-year students? What is the annual rate of credit accumulation for high school students? These and other data should be analyzed to answer the question: How do the students perform during the time they are actually enrolled in the school?

If these analyses still show that school is in distress, then accountability actions would be warranted. But if they reveal that low scores are in significant part artifacts of high mobility, then that needs to be considered by regulators. The framework should be the starting point, not the final word. Framework measures should not be used as automatic triggers for accountability actions.

This new research provides solid evidence of the need to factor student mobility into accountability systems. This can be done through careful construction of the data that go into the framework, and through additional analysis after the raw framework score has been determined.

We hope that this analysis advances the understanding of student mobility, and its effect on measures of student and school performance. We also hope that it illustrates why raw framework scores should not be the sole basis for school accountability actions.

The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Since 2012, Tennessee has taken a unique approach to intervening in struggling schools. With the goal of turning around the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools in the state (known as priority schools), officials introduced two separate models: the Achievement School District (ASD) and Innovation Zones (iZones). The ASD is a state-run district that directly manages some priority schools and turns others over to select charter management organizations. iZones, on the other hand, are subsets of priority schools that remain under district control but are granted greater autonomy and financial support to implement interventions. There are four districts that contain iZones: Shelby County Schools (Memphis), Metro-Nashville Public Schools, Hamilton County Schools (Chattanooga), and Knox County Schools (Knoxville). The remaining priority schools weren’t included in either of these initiatives, effectively creating a comparison group.

Research teams from Vanderbilt University and the University of Kentucky have kept a close eye on both initiatives. In 2015, they published an evaluation of the ASD and iZone schools after three years of implementation. They found that, while ASD schools did not improve any more or less than other priority schools, iZone schools produced moderate to large positive effects on student test scores. A separate study also found that both initiatives had high rates of teacher turnover, but that the numbers were higher in ASD than iZone schools.

Now a recently published study examines the impacts of both initiatives after five years of implementation. To complete their evaluation, the researchers examined student- and teacher-level demographic data, test scores on state assessments, and school enrollment data from 2006—07 through 2016—17. They then compared changes in test scores after reforms were initiated with changes in test scores in priority schools that weren’t part of the ASD or iZones.

The five-year findings are similar to the results of the three-year evaluation. After five years, iZone schools showed moderate to large positive and statistically significant effects on reading, math, and science test scores. These results that suggest iZone schools were able to sustain their early success. ASD schools, on the other hand, showed insignificant results across all three subjects—that is, they did not gain more or less than non-ASD or iZone priority schools. Since the ASD includes recent cohorts of schools that were only exposed to one to three years of reform, the researchers also reviewed the data using only the first two cohorts of schools, those overseen by the ASD for four or five years. However, they found that effects were still not statistically significant in any subject.

The researchers also took their analysis a step further by comparing the iZone’s positive results to other turnaround results across the country. They found that, in reading, iZone gains of 0.14 standard deviations were similar to those that occurred under the School Redesign Grants model in Massachusetts and the state takeover of Lawrence Public Schools. In math, iZone effects ranging between 0.16 and 0.20 standard deviations were similar to gains achieved in Philadelphia’s restructured schools. 

Overall the results for ASD schools were disappointing, but the findings of this brief and the gains made by iZone schools are a valuable addition to existing school turnaround research.

SOURCE: Lam Pham, Gary T. Henry, Ron Zimmer, Adam Kho, “School Turnaround After Five Years: An Extended Evaluation of Tennessee’s Achievement School District and Local Innovation Zones,” Tennessee Education Research Alliance (June 2018). 

The world is getting more flooded by issues of disproportionality whether in education, politics, or opportunities to vote. A myriad of examples exist in the form of policies that pit people against each other rather than cause the steady increase in overall opportunities which comes with raising the bar for everyone.

In education, creating the proverbial level playing field that enables minority and low-income students to be identified and served in gifted education programs is critical. There are lots of children, children of color, children whose first language is not English, children living in poverty, who do not get access to gifted programs for all kinds of reasons. Either they never learn about these programs or they are not looked at as kids who ultimately could benefit from them. Many of these children have undeveloped abilities that may never be realized.

As M. René Islas, executive director of the National Association for Gifted Children, recently said, this really is a “social justice issue…children living in poverty, and from racial and ethnic and language minorities, are not getting a fair shake at getting access to gifted services.”

A study by the National Center for Research on Gifted Education found that even when these disadvantaged students were performing at the same level as their more well-off peers, they were still 250 percent less likely to be identified for and served in a gifted program. How is this possible? When I was chancellor of New York City schools, I implemented a plan for universal screening that relied on multiple indicators, not just a single IQ test, and recommended children be tested more than once. This gave young gifted minority and poor students who usually go unnoticed, early access to challenging material allowing them to progress as they should.

Much more work remains. In New York City, only 27 percent of black or Hispanic students are identified for gifted programs, and in the specialized high schools, that number drops to 10 percent.

These two issues—early identification and specialized high schools—are cousins, and there are concrete solutions that could bring equity to the city’s gifted education programs. Yet, when we start talking about giving an opportunity to those who heretofore have not had that chance, others will argue without evidence that a watered-down gifted program will unfold.

We must look for and cultivate gifts and talents across multiple domains. For example, using the arts in all its forms as a strategy for validating the abilities and culturally relevant assets already existing in many communities that are underserved. The rhythm, rhymes, and patterns of language evidenced in jazz, hip hop, social media, art, and design are begging to be included in the teaching of disciplines of higher mathematics, language, and the sciences.

There is a shared desire for change, and we must bring all stakeholders to the table, keeping parents at the center of the conversation. They are the ultimate consumers of education, and they are the strongest advocates for their children. We need to help them become partners with their children’s schools and connect them with the resources they need to truly understand how the system works.

Schools alone cannot solve the issue of inequality, but with the right combination of passion, commitment, and sound policies, we can build a runway that will give many children the opportunity to aim high, dream big, and excel.

The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Did you know that there’s a great new resource to help you keep up with charter school news in the Buckeye State and across the country? It’s called Ohio Charter News Weekly and you can have it delivered to your email Inbox every Friday. To subscribe to this quick mix of news, opinion, and events collated with the busy charter school stakeholder in mind, click here, and you won’t miss another edition.

You’ll be glad you did.

Over the past two years, Fordham has been an outspoken critic of some of the efforts to modify Ohio’s graduation requirements. It’s not that we think the current graduation requirements are perfect. Heck, we’ve even offered a variety of ideas to modify the current framework. It’s that the “solutions” being offered create pathways where students can receive diplomas without any objective demonstration of academic competency. To us, this is a problem and ignores the very real reason that graduation requirements were made more rigorous in the first place. Namely, too few students have been graduating from high school with the skills to either go to college or enter the workforce.

In early May, the Akron Beacon Journal wrote an important story detailing how the modified graduation requirements for the class of 2018 (students who can’t pass state assessments or earn industry credentials can receive a diploma by completing two of nine other pathways) are playing out in Akron. This is the first large school district where we could see the impact of the modified graduation requirements.

The data raised many concerns for me, and I wrote an op-ed that was published on May 17 in the Beacon Journal. Akron Superintendent David James wrote a response to my op-ed that was published on May 26. Some of the points raised by Superintendent James, who from everything I’ve heard is a good district leader, deserve a response. What follows is the superintendent’s op-ed with comments added. This rather unorthodox format is being used in an effort not to take the superintendent’s remarks out of context. We hope you find it useful.

Achieving results with higher graduation standards

By David W. James

Problems can seem simple to solve until we truly understand them. The danger in oversimplifying problem-solving — in a public forum — is that some folks may actually believe those solutions really are as simple as someone is telling them. In most cases, they are not.

Couldn’t agree more that solutions can seem simpler on paper than in reality. The bigger issue that the superintendent doesn’t address is what problem are trying to be solved.

Such is the case with the May 17 commentary by Chad Aldis of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (“When progress really isn’t progress”). Aldis’ argument that standards are being watered down so we can graduate more students is flawed because standards are actually much more stringent and rigorous now.

Suggesting that the alternative graduation options are “more stringent and rigorous” is a big claim (made by many) and completely unsupported by the facts. State law initially provided three ways of graduating. Worried not enough kids would make the cut, the state kept the three original pathways and added another option that involved students completing two of nine alternative measures. If you create different measures because students can’t reach the original ones, it’s hard to say they are more rigorous.

Recently, Mark Black, our director of secondary education, reported to our board that at the beginning of the school year, 54 percent of Akron Public Schools seniors had already met requirements for graduation. It is important to note that figure was not a projection for how many students would graduate in June.

Given the significantly higher bar set by the state, this is a great achievement and worthy of celebration.

In October, after the school year had begun, the state Department of Education added alternative solutions for students to continue to pursue a diploma, even though they had not yet met the previous standards. The standards are rigorous, not watered down.

“Rigorous”… Unfortunately, writing the word again doesn’t it make the claim any truer. The standard had been: Earn a remediation college admission test score, pass a majority of the state’s end of course exam points, or earn an industry credential and demonstrate your learning via a WorkKeys assessment. Do we really think that some of the nine alternative measures—like working at a part time job for 120 hours (an average of three hours per week), having a 93 percent attendance rate, or receiving a senior year 2.5 grade point average—are “rigorous”?

As educators, we know that some students do better if given an alternative to merely using testing as an indicator of intelligence. For those who had not yet met the requirements, they now had opportunities to earn the 18 points needed for graduation by later in the school year.

Two things: First, this isn’t about a measure of intelligence. It’s about ensuring students can read and do math at a level that allows them to go to college if they choose, or have work credentials if they’d prefer to enter the labor force directly. Second, this is a misstatement of how the alternative pathways worked. Students did not earn points based upon those measures. Points became irrelevant, and students could receive a diploma without regard to their “point” totals.

Mark Black employed an aggressive approach and brought in retired educators to volunteer to help students who had gotten off track. They could, with mentoring, follow the alternative pathways and indeed still graduate. As of this day, we have increased the number of seniors now on track to graduate by nearly 40 percentage points thanks to his plan. Here is how we arrive at this projection:

• We have 1,444 students in the class of 2018.
• 54 percent have met the graduation requirements by achieving 18 points on the Ohio State Test and accumulating 21 credits. Students not in that group, though, still have two more attempts at the tests.
• 37.2 percent have met two or more of the Alternative Pathways and accumulated 21 credits for graduation.
• 1.7 percent are in progress to meeting two of the nine Alternative Pathways needed and to accumulating the necessary credits.
• 7.1 percent are off track in meeting two of the nine Alternative Pathways and accumulating 21 credits.

Mr. Black’s efforts were commendable and deserve recognition. Akron Schools didn’t do anything wrong. The alternative graduation pathways was bad state policy that lowered the bar for students.

As for the data, they strengthen my argument. The graduation rate will be higher. The question remains whether the students will be ready for either college or the workforce. That’s where my concern lies. It looks like 54 percent met the state’s original requirements at the beginning of the year. Did that number change? How many students became ready for college or career?

As we have stated publicly, we could graduate 93 percent of the 1,444 seniors that are with us now. That is how many are on track to graduate. This has a slight margin for error, though, because these numbers do not include students who may drop out. The final graduation formula has that and other components playing a part in its determination.

This is a 20 percent increase over the current graduation rate that required passage of the old Ohio Graduation Test assessment. Let me get this straight: Nothing was watered down, but the graduation rate increased 20 percent in one year? Didn’t I read somewhere about oversimplifying problems…

We realistically project our graduation rate at least 10 points to 15 points higher than our previous rate of 73 percent. Suffice to say, this alternative solution by the state, which focuses on academic rigor and demonstration of college and career readiness, combined with our aggressive approach is working for our students and their families.

Again, your approach to helping students receive a diploma is worthy of commendation. The same efforts could have been focused on helping them demonstrate academic proficiency or earn an industry credential that would give them real work skills after high school. As for the suggestion that state’s alternative solution “focuses on academic rigor,” you’ll need a lot more evidence to convince anyone.

Let’s pretend it is 1993, because many of us who graduated high school before 1994 would have been the beneficiary of a less rigorous set of graduation standards than students who picked up their diplomas between 1994 and today. That group of beneficiaries would include Chad Aldis, who would have — had he been born just a few years later — found himself with anything but watered down standards.

Though I found it kind of strange to be personally mentioned in a response, it provides a nice opportunity to state categorically that neither I nor any other student who grows up economically disadvantaged are a “beneficiary” of low standards. Students don’t benefit from having low expectations related to core math and reading skills.

Importantly, this is an acknowledgement from the superintendent that prior to 1994, when no objective demonstration of academic competency was required for earning a diploma, the requirements were less rigorous. That’s exactly what happened with the class of 2018.

As it was, for Aldis to have graduated from high school, all he had to do was his homework, get his 18 credits and pass his final exams. So the argument he presents is flawed.

This just doesn’t make any sense. My argument was that, even though Akron’s graduation rate jumped, it’s not clear that its students are more prepared for college or the workforce. The graduation requirements I had to meet have no connection, but I can say that, while I have done well, many of my classmates haven’t. I can’t help but wonder if their lives would have been different if they’d left high school more prepared.

I’m adding a link for those of you who can go online to our website to see what Ohio state standards are. For those of you who graduated prior to 1994, think about how you might have done using today’s benchmarks.

Think about something else, too. Think about how many fewer factory jobs exist now than in the 80s and 90s. Think about how workers are expected to know more than ever. Think about the people you graduated with that just weren’t prepared by the end of high school and have struggled their entire lives.

Let’s be clear about one thing. Today’s students do not have an easier path to graduation. Much to the contrary. I began by telling you that solutions seem simple until we really have an understanding of the problem. We hope readers of this will not do what Aldis did and oversimplify the solution. This is much too important for any of us to employ that “logic.”

Students in the class of 2018 were the first since 1994 not to have to show academic competence in any subject to graduate. Speaking of oversimplifying solutions, I’m not sure that anything could be simpler than giving students diplomas even when they don’t have core academic or career skills. Simple for the adults that is, not for the students.

Since Superintendent James started with saying that solutions are simple until you understand the problem, it seems fitting to conclude with a reminder of the problem. Too few students, in Akron and across the state, are ready for life after high school. The state’s weakened—yes, less rigorous—graduation standards for the class of 2018 do nothing to resolve that problem.

With college tuition at an all-time high, Ohio families are increasingly interested in finding ways to save on costs. Dual credit is a promising solution because if offers students the chance to earn high school and college credits simultaneously. Ohio has a plethora of dual-credit options, but some are better known to families than others. Here is a quick overview of the offerings.

Awarded credit

This is likely the best-known dual-credit pathway. Students can earn college credit through programs like Advanced Placement (AP), a set of subject-specific courses and tests designed to give secondary students a taste of college-level material. State law guarantees that students can receive college credit from state institutions for any of the thirty-eight available AP tests as long as they earn a score of three or higher out of five. Although this credit will show up on students’ college transcripts, course grades aren’t included. Even students who don’t take official AP courses are allowed to take the tests and earn credit if they earn a high enough score, an option that is sometimes necessary when schools won’t or can’t offer the courses.

Transcripted credit

Students enrolled in College Credit Plus (CCP), a rapidly growing option in Ohio, earn transcripted credit because the class grade and course credit they receive appears on their high school and college transcripts. Unlike AP, which offers dual credit to students based on high school courses taught by secondary teachers, CCP awards dual credit via dual enrollment. That is, a student who takes part in CCP is a high school student and a college student simultaneously, and they are taking an actual college class. Because the stakes are so high, state law restricts enrollment to those who have been deemed college-ready. There are also additional rules regarding which courses students can take and consequences for poor performance. Schools are required to give presentations to students and families regarding access to CCP, and some larger schools have staff assigned to monitor and support their CCP students.

Articulated credit

This is a lesser-known dual-credit option with some exciting possibilities and nagging weak spots. Articulation agreements are arrangements between secondary schools and colleges or universities that link high school–level courses to similar college courses. These agreements can be narrow—focused on a partnership between a single secondary school and a university—or extend statewide. To obtain credit, the process is relatively simple: Students request college credit for secondary classes they passed using a verification form. The Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE), which administers articulated credit programs, has an online search tool that can help students determine which of their high school credits transfer. Like awarded credit, articulated credit shows up on a student’s college transcript and does not include a course grade.

The most intriguing aspect of articulated credit is the possibilities it creates for career and technical education (CTE) students. The majority of dual-credit options focus almost exclusively on traditional academic courses. For many students, this traditional route fits their postsecondary and career plans just fine. But for the thousands of high schoolers who are enrolled in CTE programs, traditional dual-credit options aren’t always as useful.  

That’s where Career-Technical Credit Transfer, a type of articulated credit, comes in. State law requires ODHE and the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) to create a policy that allows students to transfer technical courses to state institutions of higher education. The departments have opted to fulfill this mandate in two ways: through bilateral articulation agreements and Career Technical Assurance Guides (CTAGs).

Bilateral articulation agreements are arrangements between a secondary CTE program and a higher education institution. In essence, they are written assurances that courses completed in a secondary CTE program will count for credit at a particular college or university that offers a program in the same field. (Colleges outside the agreement can also award credit, but they aren’t required to do so.) This option is typically utilized by career tech centers, and can include local businesses as partners as part of the agreement.

CTAGs, on the other hand, are statewide articulation agreements. This means that, by law, all public colleges and universities are required to award postsecondary credit for particular CTE courses. Not every CTE course is included in a CTAG, but there are a wide variety of options (like virtual design and imaging and electrical engineering technology) that transfer to a wide range of institutions. The state requires students to meet standards—such as a specific class grade and/or a certain score on an EOC exam—to receive credit via a CTAG, which students must seek within three years for it to apply.

As exciting as all of this is, Ohio’s articulated credit options seem to require a higher degree of student motivation and ownership than the other dual-credit pathways. They also require more forward planning to line up high school courses with future higher education plans. The amount of high school–level support available to students isn’t particularly clear, and data around the numbers of students taking advantage of articulated credit, the costs of programs, and student success rates are difficult to find.

***

The best part of Ohio’s myriad dual-credit options is that nothing prevents students from trying all of them. An enterprising student could enroll in CCP while also taking AP and CTE courses and net themselves a serious amount of college credit before ever walking across the high school stage. Of course, it’s far more likely that students will only try one pathway. But that’s good news too: Each offers a host of possibilities, and ODHE offers a video module designed to inform students of all of them.

There are certainly ways to improve Ohio’s dual credit offerings, particularly when it comes to making students and parents aware of their options and supporting their efforts institutionally. But overall, Ohio’s robust sector—and it’s commitment to ensuring that CTE students aren’t excluded because of the technical nature of their courses—deserves applause. 

1. Noted newspaper nabob Bertram de Souza opined this weekend in support of the Youngstown Plan. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/8/18)
    
2. U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is back in Northwest Ohio today, visiting Penta Career Center outside Toledo to observe its adult career-tech training programs. Nice. (Toledo Blade, 7/8/18)
    
3. Despite endless verbal commitments from multiple entities and organizations to boost the quality and quantity of pre-K in central Ohio, at least one prominent source of funding for such work is in question. Seems that the usually-bottomless piggy bank of the City of Columbus’ Education Department may be dry and it may need to stop supporting its teacher education program at the end of this fiscal year. Couldn’t have anything to do with copious unwarranted tax abatements given by City Council to developers, could it? (Columbus Dispatch, 7/8/18)
    
4. After making a giant fuss back in December to protest their sponsor rating – and winning their appeal – Newark City Schools has apparently decided to forego sponsoring any charter schools after all for 2018-19. Wonder what changed? Anywho, that’s bad news for students at the district-sponsored dropout recovery school, which is now permanently closed. Whether those students will find a proper landing spot in the district’s own new online program remains to be seen. However, this development is good news for the bricks-and-mortar Par Excellence Academy, which will not only remain in business (sponsored by the Ohio Department of Education) but will actually be able to grow. Despite the fact that Par Excellence families had apparently been begging for a sixth grade class for years, the school was forbidden by the district from expanding as part of the sponsorship contract in order to minimize “competition” and to make sure “their kids” were back in the district (in their coffers, I mean) as soon as possible. Thank goodness that foolishness is at an end. (Newark Advocate, 7/6/18)
    
5. Speaking of good news, parents of students with autism will soon have a new provider of education services in Northwest Ohio. The Footprints Center for Autism has found a home, sharing space with the local high school in Perry, are will open up its doors (including to students using the Ohio Autism Scholarship) in September. (Willoughby News-Herald, 7/8/18)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

Big changes are coming for Ohio’s dropout prevention and recovery charter schools

The State Board of Education recently adopted significant changes to the rules around Ohio's dropout prevention and recovery school report cards. Among other changes, graduation rate expectations have increased and it will now be more difficult for schools to earn dropout prevention and recovery school designations. Fordham’s Jessica Poiner breaks down some of the changes here.  

Toledo charter school students attend behavioral health summer camp

This year, Caregiver Grove (a behavioral health service provider) started providing in-school counseling at several charter schools in Toledo, including Achieve, STAR Academy of Toledo, and REACH Academy. But their work didn’t stop when summer vacation began. Instead, they launched a summer version of the program and 20 students, ages 8 to 17, are currently enrolled. The program is set up like a summer camp (with sports, field trips, and art) that’s designed to help the students with anger management, depression and anxiety, social skills, and expressing emotions.

Innovation Ohio’s half truths about ECOT and school funding

Over the past month, several newspapers have published articles on ECOT and based their coverage on an analysis from Innovation Ohio (an anti-charter group in the state) that calculates the amount of state money that transferred from local districts to ECOT from 2012-2017. In a new piece from Fordham’s Aaron Churchill, he reviews the ways in which Innovation Ohio, and the media that amplified its analysis, erred and explains how the coverage has distorted how school funding works in the Buckeye State.

How Paymon Rouhanifard rescued one of America’s most troubled school districts

A new piece from Politico Magazine tells the fascinating story of Camden, New Jersey superintendent Paymon Rouhanifard and highlights the work he did to rescue one of America’s most troubled school districts. Much of the piece focuses on Camden’s adaptations of traditional charter schools (think KIPP and Mastery) to the specific context of New Jersey law, which aims to make charters similar to traditional district schools. Data suggest that the short-term gains are significant, but Rouhanifard cautions it is not a perfect system. It is, he says, “the most we can do in the least amount of time possible.”

Upcoming events

Registration is open for the Ohio Auditor of State's 2018 Community School Training (August 1) in Columbus, Ohio. Are you interested in rural education? Check out the National Forum to Advance Rural Education being held in Denver this year (October 11-13). As a reminder, you can still register for the 2018 Project-Based Learning Ohio Institute (July 24-27) in New Albany.

* * *

Did you know you could have every edition of Ohio Charter News delivered right to your Inbox? You can subscribe by clicking here.