Early College High Schools are designed to be rigorous programs that partner with higher-education institutions to help teens earn college credit before graduation, with the aim of improving their chance of success after graduation. There are currently more than 300 of them in thirty states. They go beyond general dual-enrollment programs by requiring students to earn at least twelve transferable credits, providing more support services, and intentionally recruiting students who are underrepresented in higher education.

A recent study by Tom Swiderski of the University of North Carolina uses ten years of student-level data to estimate the effect of Early College High Schools (ECHS) in North Carolina—where almost one hundred of them operate—on bachelor’s degree attainment. It examines those effects by area of study, with a focus on STEM degrees. The sample comprises 400,000 students who attended public high schools in the state, including 7,300 who attended ECHS.

Swiderski starts with high school outcomes, based in part on the idea that any boost to bachelor’s degree attainment may occur because ECHS better prepare students for academic success at the next level. He finds that, compared to otherwise similar students attending traditional public schools, attending an Early College High Schools increased the chance of passing at least one college-level course by the end of twelfth grade (87.8 percent versus 42.5 percent), as well as one college-level math or science course (55.5 percent versus 24.1 percent), and that ECHS students had a higher GPA in their math and science courses at any level (0.15 grade points, a 7 percent bump).

The study also finds that Early College High Schools indeed boost bachelor’s degree attainment of students, compared to similar peers attending traditional public schools, by 4.7 percentage points (from 24.8 percent to 29.5 percent). This includes increases in STEM degrees, but at a rate nearly proportional to overall bachelor’s growth. According to Swiderski, “This suggests that changes in concentrations within STEM fields are likely primarily due to students switching which field of STEM they choose to pursue rather than switching into or out of STEM.”

And there are substantial differences between different STEM and STEM-related fields. Compared to their peers in traditional high schools, for example, ECHS students were significantly more likely to earn a degree in the natural sciences (4.2 percent versus 2.9 percent), math and computer science (1.6 percent versus 1.0 percent), and psychology (3.3 percent versus 2.1 percent)—collectively much higher than the increase in overall bachelor’s degree attainment. It’s a different story in engineering and healthcare, though, where the effects are null or negative: 1.4 percent of ECHS earn a bachelor’s in engineering versus 1.5 percent of the comparison group, and in healthcare, it’s 1.8 percent versus 2.1 percent.

Encouragingly, the study found stronger effects for traditionally underrepresented groups. For example, natural science bachelor’s degree attainment nearly doubled for Black and Hispanic students (from 1.9 percent to 3.7 percent) and economically disadvantaged students (from 1.6 percent to 2.7 percent). However, the gap between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged students also grew slightly.

As society becomes ever more dependent on technology, we will need more scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics expects employment in STEM occupations to increase by 11 percent by 2031. And compared to other groups, Black and Hispanic students remain significantly less likely to earn a STEM degree and less likely to work in  STEM-related occupations. The study therefore suggests that Early College High Schools can help mitigate these problems. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that, of the 23,000 traditional public and high schools in the United States, less than 400 are Early College High Schools. Lawmakers and state education leaders would do well to consider how they might increase that number.

SOURCE: Tom Swiderski, “The Effect of Early College High Schools on STEM Bachelor's degree attainment: Evidence from North Carolina,” Education Finance and Policy (June 2023).

Cheers

• Twice as many Newark students than normal attended summer school in hopes of recovering from pandemic-era learning loss. —Chalkbeat
• Profiles of four organizations working to foster access to non-traditional, post-secondary pathways. —K-12 Dive
• “As Philadelphia mulls year-round schooling, a charter school network shows what it can look like.” —Chalkbeat

Jeers

• Schools in Hillsborough County Florida are trimming English class expectations, asking teachers to only read excerpts from Shakespeare's plays. —Tampa Bay Times

• Georgia withdrew from a testing pilot program after federal regulations stymied their ability to innovate effectively. —Center for Assessment
• “The leap into a new era of machine intelligence carries risks and challenges, but also plenty of promise.” —John Bailey
• Last year, Teach For America placed the fewest number of teachers in schools in its history; now, it’s taking steps to regain its footing. —Education Week

1. Some nice words for Ohio in this opinion piece written by the Senior Vice President of the Commonwealth Foundation in Pennsylvania. Specifically, he lauds Ohio’s recent expansion of school choice—in all its forms—via the state budget bill. He hopes his own state will follow suit. (RealClearEd, 8/8/23) In related news, private school leaders in Dayton are anticipating an enrollment bump—this year, next year, or both—in the wake of EdChoice eligibility expansion to near-universal levels. (Dayton Daily News, 8/9/23)
   
   

2. Those private school leaders don’t explain why they think lots of parents will be looking for new schools for their kids beyond the increased availability of vouchers, which is very nice of them. I am not as nice (it has been said), so allow me to propose some reasons on their behalf, using my favorite source: The words of district employees as quoted in the media. First up: The superintendent of North College Hill City Schools is giving us some more details on their brand new four-day school week due to start soon. Feels to me like a huge burden is being put on parents here as the supe describes it, whose work weeks (I feel confident in saying) still include Mondays no matter what dude seems to think. (Spectrum News 1, 8/7/23) Speaking of back to school, the annual celebrations in Lorain City Schools had a little focus on kids…and a lot of focus on the serendipitous end of state oversight in the perennially-underperforming district. I don’t think any parent could read those quotes and identify what has improved in terms of education in that district. I reckon they would have a different version of the story if any of them were given the chance to be quoted on the record as freely as union members and current district leadership…which is, as I know you know, the same as the old leadership which ran the district directly into state oversight. Just sayin’. (WOSU-FM, Columbus, 8/7/23) Cincinnati City Schools is one of the very few districts to offer Montessori education in a public school setting, and they have been doing so since 1975. Amazing! However, we learn in this piece that in fact the model(s) called by that name and used in the district’s high schools for decades were never accredited by the American Montessori Society, despite being touted as providing “top-notch” Montessori education. Say what? District officials provide “theories” as to why that didn’t happen, most of which point fingers at state requirements for “frequent testing”. Charming. I don’t know what, then, students were experiencing before, but we also learn that the district’s two Montessori high schools did in fact get accredited as proper purveyors of the model five years ago…after the elected school board approved a new Montessori curriculum. It took them a mere forty years to get there. Additionally, we hear that the Montessori elementary and middle schools in the district are “on the way” to similar accreditation, after a curriculum tweak, but it could still take two more years. There’s a lot to unpack here, but my main takeaway in light of our topic of the day is: What parent wouldn’t want their school district to operate at such a glacial pace for something they really believed in? (Cincinnati Enquirer, 8/7/23) And, never to be outdone without a fight, Youngstown City Schools could be looking at a teachers strike coinciding with the scheduled first day of school this year. Yep. It sure is a mystery why school choice is surging in Ohio. A real head scratcher. (WFMJ-TV, Youngstown, 8/8/23)
   
   

3. Finally today, returning to our theme of “choice good” (as if we ever really left it): Toledo School for the Arts’ big $10 million glow up is now complete. The “most successful” charter school in Ohio (I’ll go along with it, even if City Paper does seem to bestow this title itself, sans criteria) now has even more studios, labs, and course offerings, and has capacity to enroll nearly ten times more students than it did when it first opened. Great news all around. You know, given all the other news. (Toledo City Paper, 8/8/23)

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

Computer-adaptive testing (CAT) is on the rise in K–12 schools, from Seattle to Virginia and everywhere in between. Proponents of the algorithm-driven testing model say that having variable problem sets geared toward the demonstrated capabilities of individual students allows for more accurate assessment, especially for very high and very low achievers—with less gaming and guessing—along with a focus on student growth rather than raw scores. Opponents, meanwhile, contend that those features play into the fears of test-averse students and can depress their scores. New research from Japan may offer some clues to help unravel this conundrum.

Japanese education officials have been resistant to using computer-adaptive testing for several reasons, including those noted above, but also some that are peculiar to Japan. There, large groups of students taking the same test in the same place at the same time is a longstanding cultural touchstone that would be entirely eliminated by administration of tests that must be taken on electronic devices, have different questions for each student, and likely require differing amounts of time for students to complete. Nevertheless, CAT’s expansion into international arenas like PISA and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) has made the Education Ministry take a second look. Three researchers from institutions across the country developed a computer-adaptive testing protocol designed to determine not only how students performed, but also how they perceived the testing method and whether their own attitudes toward testing were reinforced or allayed by the experience.

The researchers conducted two experiments. The first was to determine whether students who have testing anxiety performed more poorly on computer-adaptive tests than those who do not. They compiled a proxy measure of anxiety based on students’ self-reported achievement goals (whether they are focused on performance or mastery, à la Dweck) and approach to learning (deep vs. surface). A total of 870 students (474 fifth graders, 174 sixth graders, 163 seventh graders, and 58 students from an unknown grade) from the Kansai region were recruited between June and September 2020 to participate in the first experiment. (Japanese schools mostly remained open during the pandemic.) A total of 415 students were male; 383 were female. Data indicate that a student’s performance goal did not directly predict their test outcome, implying that the computer-adaptive test did not reinforce any preexisting anxiety about test taking. Additionally, students were surveyed post-test regarding their attitudes toward three types of assessments: the computer-adaptive version they just took, the traditional fixed-item version with which they were familiar, and a putative human-adaptive test which is a hybrid of the two. Despite limited familiarity with CAT, students in the first experiment expressed more positive attitudes toward it than toward traditional fixed-item and human-adaptive versions.

The second experiment, conducted in Kansai from March to July 2021, involved an additional 745 students (540 fifth graders, 90 sixth graders, 100 seventh graders, and 15 students from unknown grade levels), roughly half male and half female. The basics of the previous experiment were repeated with the same results. However, this time students were given more detailed versions of the two surveys, aimed at identifying potential mechanisms at work. Results revealed that students who felt that the value of testing was primarily to show improvement or to get them to develop study habits were least accepting of computer-adaptive testing, although the difference between them and their peers was minimal. Students who felt that the value of testing was to determine comparative achievement levels preferred a putative human-adaptive test over the other two options.

What might all this mean? The researchers believe it means that computer-adaptive testing does not make students who are prone to anxiety regarding their test performance any more or less anxious than a traditional fixed-item test would. On the contrary, most students seem unopposed to the new model regardless of their level of test anxiety. In the highly-traditional Japanese education sector, that’s saying something. More specifically, if the purpose of testing is made clear to students—that is, what their teachers and school leaders are going to do with the resulting data—nearly any type of test seems to be acceptable to them. And, as noted above, the data obtained from a computer-adaptive test are more focused on growth measures rather than raw or scaled scores, which can be compared among students. As long as teachers, administrators, and policymakers are good with that new focus, it seems that CAT could be expanded in K–12 education without concern.

SOURCE: Takayuki Goto, Kei Kano, and Takayuki Shiose, “Students’ acceptance on computer-adaptive testing for achievement assessment in Japanese elementary and secondary school,” Educational Psychology (July 2023).

In 2018, basketball superstar LeBron James opened the I Promise School (IPS) in his hometown of Akron, Ohio. IPS is a joint effort between Akron Public Schools (APS), the I Promise Network, and the LeBron James Family Foundation. It’s overseen and operated by APS, the state’s seventh largest school district. But thanks to additional funding and support from the foundation, it also offers a host of resources that most district schools do not—things like free uniforms, tuition to the University of Akron when students graduate high school, and family services like GED classes and job placement assistance. The school also has some unique characteristics that are typically associated with schools of choice: an extended school day and year, a STEM curriculum, and alternative working conditions for teachers.

During the school’s inaugural year, it welcomed 240 students in third and fourth grade. The original plan was to add students and grade levels each year so that the school would serve students in grades 1–8 by 2022. But in 2019, the school announced that, although it would continue adding a grade level each year up until eighth grade, it would not add first and second grades. Students are admitted in third grade via a lottery of second graders, who must already attend APS and fall into the bottom 30 percent of reading scores. The school’s website reinforces its focus on academically struggling students by declaring its dedication “to those students who are already falling behind and in danger of falling through the cracks.” In several pieces published by the Akron Beacon Journal (ABJ), its noted that the school’s goal is to “move students forward at a rate of one and a third years’ worth of growth in one year. That would get a student who is two years behind in third grade back on track before they reach high school.”

The school’s initial results were promising. In April 2019, it announced on Twitter that 90 percent of its students had met or exceeded their expected growth in math and reading on NWEA MAP, a national computer adaptive assessment that measures academic growth over time. Coverage in USA Today called the results “extraordinary” and noted that scores at IPS increased at a rate higher than ninety-nine out of 100 schools based on NWEA norms.

As anyone who works in education will tell you, though, multiple measures matter when it comes to evaluating a school’s performance. To their credit, most media outlets recognized that. The New York Times pointed out that “time will tell whether the gains are sustainable and how they stack up against rigorous state standardized tests at the end of the year.” And they were right. State test results would matter immensely.

But those showed promise, too. When state report cards were released in the fall of 2019, IPS had earned an overall grade of C. In the age of grade inflation, folks accustomed to nothing but A’s might be displeased. Under the circumstances, however, a C was actually a good thing. It meant that, overall, the school was meeting the state’s expectations. In fact, for a brand-new school that was purposely targeting students performing a year or two behind grade level, a C was pretty impressive. It was even more praiseworthy considering the school’s demographics: The overwhelming majority of students were economically disadvantaged, 29 percent were students with disabilities, 15 percent were English language learners, and over 80 percent were minorities.

A more detailed breakdown of state report card components showed a mixed bag. The school earned an F on the achievement component, which measures students’ overall performance on state assessments. But it also earned an A on the progress component, which determines the growth of students based on their past performance and gives credit when students—including those below grade level—exceed growth expectations. In English language arts, IPS students made progress similar to statewide expectations. In math, however, students made more progress than expected. The school also earned high marks for progress in certain subgroups: a B for students identified as the lowest 20 percent statewide in reading, math, or science, and another B for students with disabilities.

The big takeaway after one year was that both state test results and in-house exams measuring growth indicated that students at IPS weren’t just learning, they were learning a lot. If that kind of growth continued, the school would be well on its way to meeting its goal.

And then the pandemic hit.

At IPS, as elsewhere, it had a massive negative impact on student academic performance. School closures, remote learning, and a plethora of other issues combined to produce whopping learning losses, especially among students from disadvantaged communities—the very same students that IPS makes it a point to serve. IPS students were already years behind their peers before the pandemic hit. Learning loss of any kind would be catastrophic to their outcomes. Add to that the fact that IPS was just a year and a half old when the pandemic hit (staff were still trying to establish the school’s culture) and was experiencing some leadership turmoil (the school lost its founding principal during its third year and then had three interim principals in just a year and a half), and it would’ve been a miracle for IPS students to escape the pandemic academically unscathed.

Here, as elsewhere, the pandemic also made it more difficult—though not impossible—to keep track of results over time via publicly available data. State tests weren’t administered in 2019–20, so there was no way to easily compare the school’s second year to its first. State tests were administered in 2020–21, but ratings weren’t assigned, so the IPS report card from that year is similarly unhelpful.

But there is one important exception to the pandemic era’s dearth of data: Ohio maintained its performance index measure, which considers the state test results of every student and awards schools points based on the state’s six achievement levels. The higher a student’s achievement, the more points the school earns. For example, a student who scores at the advanced level earns their school 1.2 points, while a student testing at the basic level (just below proficient) earns 0.6 points. Schools weren’t graded on performance index during the pandemic, but the state did calculate it during the years that tests were administered. During the 2018–19 school year, when IPS was showing lots of promise (pun intended), it posted a performance index score of 53.5. Two years later, in the wake of the pandemic, IPS’s performance index score had dropped to 27.5, a loss of nearly half.[1]  The school’s score rebounded slightly in 2021–22 to 38, but that’s still far below the score of its inaugural year.

To be clear, IPS isn’t the only school that saw its performance index scores plummet. In fact, between 2018–19 and 2021–22, average performance index scores dropped for the state overall, for districts, and for every student subgroup. Most notably, there were double-digit declines among economically disadvantaged students, Black students, and students with disabilities. As noted earlier, these students make up a majority of the IPS population.

Because the performance index scores at IPS show a similar trend to districts and schools throughout the rest of the state, it seems reasonable to say that the lackluster results coming out of IPS could be attributed to the pandemic. That’s especially true in light of the school’s demographics and the fact that it specifically enrolls students who are academically behind. Of all the schools in Ohio, IPS might have the strongest argument that the pandemic derailed its efforts, and that it shouldn’t be judged too harshly on recent results.

But maybe not. As a public school under the umbrella of Akron Public Schools, IPS received a share of the billions of dollars in federal relief funding that was sent to states to combat learning loss. And while other schools might not have known what to do with all that money, IPS should have. First, because the school leaders should have been accustomed to being financially flush. The LeBron James Family Foundation spent roughly $2 million during the school’s first year, including startup costs, and committed to spending around $2 million or more per year once the school had grown to capacity. Unlike a standard district school, IPS has always had extra money at its disposal. Second, one of the school’s defining features is that it offers students an extended day and school year. Research shows that one of the best learning loss remedies is extra time, including time before and after school and during the summer. While other schools might have struggled to figure out how to provide kids with instruction during periods when buildings were typically closed and teachers were gone, IPS didn’t have that problem. Extra time was built into its DNA.

And then there’s the wraparound services. Another defining feature of IPS is that it offers students more than just an education. It also offers counseling, health checkups, food pantries, clothing, tutoring (which, when done correctly, is another evidence-backed remedy for learning loss), and even housing. Lacking access to these services can impact students’ academic outcomes in both the short and long term. For students at IPS, though, this lack of access shouldn’t have existed—at least not as often as it did for their peers in other schools. And while it’s true that IPS was especially vulnerable to pandemic-related impacts because of its demographics, the school was and is set up to blunt those impacts in some pretty big ways. All things considered, it seems reasonable to expect IPS, of all schools, to catch its kids up at a pretty rapid pace.

But that doesn’t appear to be happening. At least not according to the ABJ, which recently published a piece entitled “Promises kept? Akron school board questions I Promise School’s poor test scores.” It covers a recent school board meeting where board members were presented with academic data from IPS. The opening sentence of the article is a doozy: “This fall’s class of eighth graders at the I Promise School hasn’t had a single student pass the state’s math test since the group was in the third grade.” Meanwhile, two of the school’s biggest student subgroups—Black students and those with disabilities, subgroups that made notable progress during the school’s first year—are testing in the bottom 5 percent of the state.

The coverage from the ABJ noted that, although the school receives the same base funding as any other Akron public school, the LeBron James Family Foundation has given “up to $1.4 million each year for additional tutors and more teachers in younger grades to lower class sizes.” That additional funding means that, not only did IPS likely have more money at its disposal than other Akron schools, the money was designated for academic supports that should have gone a long way to catching students up. And yet, according to the ABJ, “comparing I Promise students to their peers who qualified for the school but attend elsewhere shows that I Promise students are doing worse in some cases, despite the extra staff and wraparound services.”

APS officials didn’t offer the state test results for students who met IPS admissions criteria but didn’t attend the school. That’s a shame, as such a comparison would shine a much brighter light on how IPS is doing. But the district did offer another form of data that makes it possible to compare. Like many districts in Ohio, Akron uses iReady assessments as an internal measure of student growth. And according to Keith Liechty-Clifford, the district’s director of school improvement, IPS students in grades 3–8 performed two points better in reading but six points worse in math than other district students who were also in the bottom 25 percent.

Unfortunately, it gets even worse. The ABJ notes that Liechty-Clifford presented data at the school board meeting showing that, while some grades of students have improved over time based on state test results, others have lost ground. Last year’s sixth graders, for instance, went backward, from 7 percent proficient in reading in fifth grade, to just 2 percent in sixth grade. Last year’s fifth grade students did better—they went from less than 6 percent proficient in reading in fourth grade to 13 percent in fifth. But that’s still not comforting. If only 13 percent of fifth graders can pass the state test, and that’s considered a bright spot for the school, then we have some problems. Especially if just 2 percent of students in the next grade level up are also proficient.

It should go without saying that all these data weave a big red flag. In response, the school’s new principal, Stephanie Davis, provided a statement via the foundation. According to the ABJ, Davis claims that there are data that “wasn’t provided” at the board meeting and which show that students are, indeed, growing. She notes that, although students might not be proficient and on grade level, according to their i-Ready scores, 42 percent grew at least a year’s worth in the last year in math, and an additional 4 percent reached a “stretch” goal beyond that. Meanwhile, 32 percent of students met a goal for typical annual growth in English, and 11 percent exceeded it.

In her statement, Davis also emphasized that “the type of growth that is important to us is not made overnight.” And she’s not wrong. Growth does take time. Especially when we’re talking about proficiency, which—as Davis acknowledges—is “based on mastering grade-level standards.” When students are behind, mastering grade-level standards is far more difficult. That’s why it’s crucial to consider both proficiency and growth when evaluating school performance.

Still, the data cited by Davis should give us pause. First, that’s because they represent the percentage of students who, over the course of the last year, grew a year’s worth in math or met a goal for “typical annual growth” in English. In lay terms, that means they grew the amount they were supposed to over the course of a year. Given how many schools in Ohio fail to ensure that their students grow a year’s worth in reading and math, that’s nothing to sneeze at. But it’s also not something that should be treated as impressive. To do what IPS promised to do, kids need to make more than one year’s worth of growth each year—specifically, one and a third. APS staff knows that. “We signed up for how we attract, who we allow in, and there can’t be any excuses for why they don’t perform at that rate,” Tamiko Hatcher, the district’s director of specialty programs, told the ABJ in 2022. By Davis’s own admission, though, only 4 percent of kids in math and 11 percent in English grew more than a year. Furthermore, more than half of IPS students in both reading and math fell short of a year’s growth.

Second, although schools might need time, that doesn’t mean kids can spare it. The fourth graders from the school’s inaugural year will start high school this fall. They spent five years of their lives at IPS, a school that promised to catch them up by high school. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened. In fact, according to the ABJ, only 11 percent of the school’s first graduating class of eighth graders was proficient on the state’s ELA test.

As someone who used to teach ninth grade English, that number gives me heartburn. And as someone who grew up in Akron and still considers it my hometown, I’m deeply concerned. I understand the outsized impact of the pandemic on student outcomes. And I don’t think it’s fair to ignore that the pandemic likely played a significant role in getting IPS to the troubling place in which it now seems to live. But IPS, far more than most schools, was designed to blunt out-of-school factors. It’s always been set up to give kids the kind of intensive, in-depth intervention they need. If, when school report cards come out this fall, IPS isn’t well on its way to a significant and meaningful rebound, then it will be well past time for the school to answer some very tough questions.

1. Only one clip today, but I think it’s great that this one stands on its own…for a lot of reasons. The new-ish interim superintendent of Dayton City Schools wants to change almost everything about the district he now leads. That’s a lot of change, if you ask me. And the elected school board seems pretty excited about it all. I’m all for disrupting the status quo, but this almost makes me wonder if the district had perhaps been on the wrong track in many of these areas at some point before he got the gig last month. Just sayin’. (Dayton Daily News, 8/7/23)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? (And that most editions have more than one clip?) Subscribe by clicking here.

New support for Ohio students

State legislators and Governor DeWine are being lauded for providing $5 million over the next two years to traditional district, charter, and private schools serving girls in grades six through twelve to help provide free feminine hygiene products for their students. Thanks to bipartisan support for a provision in the recently-passed state budget, the first two million dollars will go directly to schools to purchase dispensers for the products and the remainder will be used to provide reimbursements to schools for products purchased to stock the dispensers.

Summertime is not idle time

A group of rising freshmen from Breakthrough Schools in Cleveland spent part of their summer break getting a hands-on, clinical experience thanks to a partnership with University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, and the Greater Cleveland Food Bank. The four-day program gave students an opportunity to learn about and participate in procedures in pulmonology, neurology, sports medicine, dentistry, and nutrition, among other medical specialties. Nice!

Ready to hit the road?

The Columbus Dispatch checked in this week with Columbus City Schools officials to try and answer the question “Are you ready for the new school year?” Especially in terms of transportation. Given the longstanding troubles parents and students have experienced in that realm over the years, most readers will likely not be surprised that the answer seems to be “Not yet.” Meanwhile, Cleveland Metropolitan School District officials are touting the return of yellow bus service for students attending seventh and eighth grade in the district after many years without it. Unfortunately, those officials take the opportunity to cite provision of busing to charter and private school students as the reason why they did not have the resources to offer busing to them before. What’s changed? A surfeit of Covid-relief money burning a hole in their bank account, it seems.

Speaking of transportation

As we noted early in July, a new Nevada law allowed charter schools to apply for transportation funding from the state for the first time. Last week, the first three applications were approved, providing $286,000 to offer bus service to families for the upcoming school year. More awards will follow soon, state officials reported. The largest recipient, Futuro Academy in Las Vegas, noted that lack of transportation is the most common reason cited for absences and for student withdrawal from the school. Now, they have the means to serve students themselves to lower absenteeism and keep students in school. Also happening in Nevada this year: Pay raises for charter school teachers. While recent legislation boosting teacher pay applies only to districts, charter officials across the Silver State report directing a large portion of a new general funding increase to toward pay raises for their teachers.

Literature teacher says…

Deaunna Watson is a TFA alum; a former charter school teacher; and currently the director of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging at Mercy Montessori School in Cincinnati. She has a lot to say in this EdSurge piece about the value of literature—especially Black literature—for young Black students today. I was especially taken by the discussion of her experience as a teacher at a charter school in Dayton some years ago where leadership listened to and acted on her concerns to better serve their students.

Legislation is often an imprecise instrument

Charter school supporters can attest that legislation intended to change the status quo and shift the traditional district-centric education system to better support choice often faces stiff opposition when enacted. There always seems to be a loophole that blunts efforts to improve transportation, funding, paperwork transfers, and many other mechanisms that charter and private schools depend on. The same thing appears to be happening in the Hoosier State right now, as Indianapolis Public Schools insist that their plan to bar charter operators from bidding on two unused school buildings for 30 days—while pitching them to other non-profit or government entities in that time frame—is totally cool. This despite a new state law meant to give charters right of first refusal (and a $1 sale price) on such sales.

Are you in the know?

Do you subscribe to the monthly email newsletter from the Ohio Department of Education’s Office of Community Schools? If not, you should! You’ll get important updates on requirements, regulations, and deadlines as well as more news you can use. You can become a new subscriber by clicking here.

*****

Did you know you can have every edition of the Ohio Charter News Weekly sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

1. There are a lot of words in this piece (nearly 2,900 of them) talking in the most negative possible terms about state takeovers of chronically-underperforming districts and schools. As a grizzled veteran of Ohio’s most recent effort to turn around schools whose adult leaders really didn’t want that to happen, I only needed 68 of them, carved out of the depths of targeted punditry, to get the point here: “In northeast Ohio, for example, community organizers and a Democratic state legislator, Lauren McNally, are pushing to repeal that state’s takeover law. State takeovers in the Lorain, Youngstown and East Cleveland school districts have been a ‘disaster,’ the organizers say. On the latest state report cards, all three got 1 of 5 stars for academic achievement and were ranked near the bottom of districts statewide on that measure.” Honestly, the middle 18 words were probably enough for me. (Hechinger, 8/4/23)
   
   

2. Human resource professionals in two suburban school districts in northwest Ohio are cautiously optimistic that teacher shortages are over in their area. The discussion is brief, direct, and politely positive. Whatever the previous issues were, everybody seems to be getting over them at last. Huzzah! (WTOL-TV, Toledo, 8/2/23) The tone is entirely different in this much longer piece talking to district officials in and around Dayton. It is, in my grizzled estimation, far more negative and argumentative than it needs to be. Old axes are most assuredly being ground to a fine point. I would also note that the theme is “teachers are big mad about everything and still leaving/still staying away”, but the data provided on what positions actually remain to be filled for the upcoming school year relate primarily to bus drivers, subs, paraprofessionals, and specialties like elementary music. Not sure why everyone is so cranky about that situation. (Dayton Daily News, 8/4/23)
   
   

3. Finally this week: Remember back in the day when the state board of education had a dedicated administrator who handled paperwork, communication, and other operational matters for the widely-distributed board members who all also had other day jobs? Good memories for this grizzled veteran. From my read of this piece, it appears that those days may soon be back with us thanks to changes enacted via the state budget, although that admin will have a somewhat grander title. (WKBN-TV, Youngstown, 8/3/23)

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

The use of screens increased substantially during the Covid-19 pandemic. For the twice exceptional population—those identified as gifted with coexistent learning differences like ADHD, dyslexia, Autism, or processing disorders—this “epidemic within the pandemic” resulted in deeper isolation and greater parent frustration. Why was increased screen time detrimental for twice exceptional kids, and what is the best parent approach to dial back screen usage?

A 2022 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) indicated that screen usage among children during the Covid-19 pandemic rose on average by 52 percent, with twelve- to eighteen-year-olds experiencing the highest increase. Parents were hard pressed to monitor or limit screen time because school was online and parents needed their children to be engaged for large chunks of the day.

After pandemic restrictions were lifted, screen time usage did not drop, according to recent research supported by the National Institutes of Mental Health. As school transitioned back to in-person classrooms, teachers continued utilizing screens during school and for homework. These factors, along with gaming and social media algorithms designed to maximize engagement, make it very difficult for parents or children to monitor and minimize screen usage.

There are many reasons why twice exceptional children are at particular risk for excessive screen usage, and the typical parent response is unfortunately counterproductive. Their extra intensity, rage to learn, quick and critical thinking, existential awareness, deep empathy, impulsivity, curiosity, creativity, and preference for unique and stimulating experiences make it difficult for them to successfully navigate a neurotypical world of education and social emotional relationships. Having a deep desire for meaningful connections but often struggling to relate to their peers, 2e children often feel lonely, bad, or broken.

Online pursuits offer a seemingly never-ending supply of interesting and varied options for 2e kids. And there, the rules are clear, removing confusion often caused by visual or auditory struggles in the non-virtual world. It allows them to process at their own speed (be it faster or slower than their neurotypical peers), the engaging content helps keep negative thoughts at bay, and they feel successful on screens. Video games provide fertile ground for immediate and constant achievement as the 2e child’s competitive nature is encouraged by opportunities to “level up.”

Think about it: If you had the choice of engaging in a positive feedback loop that engaged your hungry brain or straining and struggling to succeed and meet others’ expectations, which would you choose? Twice exceptional kids spend a lot of time feeling frustrated and lost. They don’t understand why things that are hard things for others are easy for them, and why typically easy things, like self-care and executive functioning skills, are hard. Screens can be a refuge. These reasons compound the 2e parent’s difficulty in setting limits and increase the 2e child’s challenge in meeting them—all of which has heightened the effects of Covid mitigation policies.

A typical parenting approach to setting limits—and one that doesn’t work—often includes incentives, consequences, and even in desperate moments, bribing, begging, and cajoling. These tactics encourage external motivation and often breakdown when the child no longer cares about the positive or negative outcome of their behaviors. Most importantly, they do not teach children the skills they need to regulate themselves.

Parents use this approach as a reaction to their child’s challenging behavior, including tantrums when asked to disengage, sneaking devices, or inappropriate use. Sometimes parents override systems by shutting off Wi-Fi connections or locking up devices. While these strategies may be necessary in the short term, they fail to teach self-regulation. Instead, the message is clear: “We don’t think you can regulate yourself.”

There is, however, an approach that does work. The first thing parents should do is decide on their own screen time expectations and limits. Frequently, they skip this step and try enforcing unclear rules or expectations. Consider how much time per day and per week you approve for your child to be on a screen. Where and when is it OK for your child to use a screen? The more clear and consistent parents are, the easier it is to understand for 2e kids. For instance, is it OK to use screens in the car, at the kitchen table, in a restaurant? Where should your children charge and store their devices? Are there certain sites or channels that are not appropriate for your child to access? Screen time is a privilege, and these expectations define how its earned. Once parents have ideas of what they hope for regarding screen-usage structure, it’s time to collaborate with the child. Parents of 2e children learn quickly that imposing an agenda doesn’t work. They must partner with their child to determine durable and long-lasting solutions to teach self-regulation.

Be clear that responsibilities come first, as well. If you haven’t discussed responsibilities and chores before, it’s time to broach the subject. Again, the best approach is a collaborative one. Show your child respect by including them in a discussion of your big picture for family life. What do you want for everyone and how can they help reach these goals? Talk about personal responsibilities (self-care, homework, room maintenance) and family responsibilities (pet care, kitchen care, laundry). Make it clear that there are expectations around these responsibilities. If one is taking out the garbage, for example, that could mean doing it on Tuesday nights, tying a double knot, and always replacing the bag. The more specific the expectations are, the more likely your child will meet them. The same structure should exist for privileges.

Whatever the expectations, these too should be collaboratively agreed upon. Talk with them about about the time of day, duration, requirements for disengaging, and appropriate content. When expectations include time limits, this raises the question of what your child will do during their free time. Rather than parenting from a place of guilt or anxiety and saying something like “You used to love to do these different activities” or “If you game all the time, you won’t have any friends,” try talking about your children’s outside interests. Help them find enrichment programs that speak to their strengths—what they love rather than what you think they should pursue. This requires listening and observing your child and understanding their interests. Sit with them, for example, when they play an online game to learn what they love about it. If your child becomes emotionally dysregulated, point out the fact that gaming should be fun and remind them that it’s a form of entertainment. When setting limits, ask your child how you can help them be successful.

Lastly, make sure your twice-exceptional child has opportunities to succeed several times a day. If the only place they feel capable is in front of a screen, it will be extraordinarily difficult to limit their screen exposure. Invite them to do things with you. Notice the positives—even when there are negatives—and remember to allow them unstructured, free-flowing time in areas of passion.

This epidemic within the pandemic occurred worldwide, and many parents of twice-exceptional children feel like they are still fighting a tidal wave. But there’s a path to relief. Instead of approaching screen time with rigidity, get your child to be more flexible by listening to their perspective, sharing your concerns, and together—slowly and steadily—deciding on healthy, realistic rules that support the 2e child’s need to feel successful. Then follow those rules. This is the best approach to address excessive screen time for these students.