At the end of November, we asked you—our loyal Ohio Gadfly readers—to tell us what you thought were the top education stories for 2016. The choices were numerous and we appreciate all of the responses. In the spirit of “ringing out the old,” we give you the Top 5:
At the end of November, we asked you—our loyal Ohio Gadfly readers—to tell us what you thought were the top education stories for 2016. The choices were numerous and we appreciate all of the responses. In the spirit of “ringing out the old,” we give you the Top 5:
If there is a theme to this year’s top education stories, it has to be increased expectations and accountability among all actors in Ohio’s K-12 education sector. We believe this is good news for Buckeye students and parents. State policymakers must stay the course and keep student success—genuine success that signals true college or career readiness—as the goal, even though holding firm will inevitably cause short-term angst. If high expectations remain, 2016 could well be the year which future analysts remember as the start of Ohio’s education renaissance.
In late 2016, we at the Ohio Gadfly asked for your predictions on the most important education issues of 2017. Here were your prognostications, along with—as you might expect from us at the Gadfly—commentary on how we hope these debates will unfold in the year to come.
Number 5: School accountability
It’s no surprise to see school accountability on our readers’ list of big issues for 2017. In the coming year, Ohio will submit a revised plan for accountability under the new Every Student Succeeds Act. Fortunately, the law doesn’t require the Buckeye State to undertake a major overhaul of its accountability policies. Ohio can and should stay the course on its key policies (with minor adjustments; see number 2 below). For instance, policymakers should maintain the use of a performance index and student growth measures or value added; they should also preserve a transparent A-F grading system. As Ohio’s ESSA plan is reviewed and debated, policymakers must ensure that accountability policies uphold high expectations for all pupils and offer clear information on school quality.
Number 4: E-schools
With over 30,000 Ohio pupils attending virtual charter schools, the Buckeye State has one of the largest e-school sectors in the nation. Online learning can be a valuable alternative for many students: Some may need the flexibility and safety that e-schools afford, while others might find their own home to be a more productive learning environment than a crowded or disrupted classroom. Nevertheless, full-time e-schooling appears to be falling short of its full potential. Rigorous research has found that the average student loses academic ground when he enrolls in a virtual school, without regard to the academic level at which he started. Meanwhile, Ohio’s largest e-school has been embroiled in a lawsuit with the state over how it verifies student attendance. So what’s next for e-schools? It’s hard to say for certain, but even their harshest critics are likely to admit that online learning is here to stay. This means that policy makers need to focus on creating the conditions that can help all of Ohio’s online learners thrive. (See here and here for some policy ideas.) Moving forward, it will be important to heed the advice of Michael Horn who writes in Forbes: “Harnessing their [e-schools’] benefits while reigning in their downsides is critical.”
Number 3: The new federal administration
On January 20th, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the forty-fifth president of the United States. As has been widely reported in the media, Trump has nominated Betsy DeVos to be U.S. Secretary of Education. What is clear is that DeVos is a staunch supporter of school choice, including vouchers and charter schools, and that Trump voiced his own support for choice on the campaign trail. But how their leadership will affect Ohio’s education policies is much less clear. The Buckeye State is already home to several robust choice options (including both charters and vouchers), and recently received a large federal grant to support the replication of high-quality charters. It also remains far from clear how a federal private-school choice program would work, or whether it would even be desirable. As analyst Joy Pullman of the conservative web magazine The Federalist recently told Time, “If DeVos and Trump love school choice, and the children it benefits, they will keep the federal government far, far away from them.” For those interested in what the new administration might do in the area of choice, tune into Fordham’s January 18th event, “A New Federal Push on Private School Choice? Three Options to Consider.”
Number 2: Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
As noted above, Ohio has a strong school accountability framework, and the bulk of it will likely remain in place under ESSA. Still, policymakers should use the ESSA state plan to make an important adjustment to accountability. They need to place more weight on student growth measures or value added, a more poverty-neutral measure, in the overall school-grading formula. (Overall A-F grades will come online in 2017-18, though they are already used for sponsor evaluations.) Under the current framework, the state will label almost all high-poverty schools as failures—Ds and Fs—due to the overemphasis of measures correlated with demographics, such as proficiency. Regrettably, this type of system fails to distinguish high-performing, high-poverty schools from true failures. This is unhelpful—even misleading—to local leaders and families who rely on report card grades to make decisions. It’s also unfair to the terrific educators at Ohio’s finest high-poverty schools who, in all likelihood, will also find themselves stuck with low ratings. A few other states such as Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, and Oregon have implemented summative ratings that place at least half the weight on student growth measures. Ohio should follow their lead, and the ESSA plan would be the perfect opportunity to recalibrate report cards and ensure a proper weighting on growth.
Number 1: Charters and choice
According to Ohio Gadfly readers, charters and choice will be the hottest topic in 2017. As these matters take center stage—if they aren’t already—it will be essential to focus on quality and results. If public charter and private schools of choice are to flourish over the long run, they need to offer students and families a higher-quality experience than the conventional options. And to win the confidence and trust of policymakers, taxpayers and the general public alike, they must consistently demonstrate positive pupil outcomes. Some Buckeye schools of choice have proven themselves, but others are mediocre or worse. As Ohio makes its long overdue turn to quality, policymakers will need to uphold accountability, including the House Bill 2 charter reforms, while also supporting the growth and replication of high-performing schools. If they can achieve these goals, we should start seeing the promise of choice begin to be fulfilled in 2017.
* * *
With our erudite readers, we too anticipate these five issues to dominate Ohio’s policy discussion in 2017. But if last year taught us anything, it’s to prepare for the unexpected! We look forward to keeping you posted on these issues and more in the New Year.
The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) recently released its analysis of state report cards—the annual summations of student and school achievement data that states are required to make available to the public under the Every Student Succeeds Act and, previously, No Child Left Behind—to determine if they’re easy for parents and other community members to find and understand. The authors examined report cards in all fifty states and D.C. for content, presentation, accessibility, and clarity, using more than sixty data points all together.
Unsurprisingly, they found that most were too difficult to find and interpret. Nineteen states maintain labyrinthine department of education websites that require three or more clicks to arrive at the report card after a simple Google search. Once found, they often comprise confusing displays, organization, and jargon that make the information difficult to interpret. For example, across the fifty-one jurisdictions, authors found more than five terms that referred to students of low-income families.
Over a dozen were also out-of-date. Only four state report cards contained all the student performance data that was first required fifteen years ago under No Child Left Behind, and ten states’ latest assessment scores were from the 2012–13 or 2013–14 school year.
More specifically, twenty-three state reports failed to include school quality measures other than test scores, such as attendance or graduation rates. Thirty-eight omit student growth data, either because they don’t track them or don’t report them. And not a single one provided readers with school funding data.
On the bright side, some report cards, such as Ohio's or Washington, D.C.'s, were deemed to be of high quality and ought to serve as examples for other states. They provide valuable information with simple layouts and minimal text. And others, including Minnesota’s and Wisconsin’s, even contain interactive pages that allow users to compare data points and graphs.
Overall, however, the DQC asserts that the information provided by most state report cards is insufficient and suffer from a lack of transparency. They encourage states to seize the opportunity provided by the Every Student Succeeds Act to design more accessible and useful annual report cards that provide community members with the information needed to make important decisions and improvements. As we at Fordham have argued, easily interpretable data are crucial for those working to enact reform, ensure accountability, and provide all students with the education they need to succeed.
SOURCE: “Show Me the Data: State Report Cards Must Answer Questions and Inform Action,” The Data Quality Campaign (December 2016).
Following the lead of our D.C. colleagues, we totted up the most-read articles posted on Ohio Gadfly Daily in 2016.
The Top Five editorial posts are a microcosm of the issues we address regularly in an effort to advance educational excellence in a very real way here in the Buckeye State:
1. House Bill 420: Opting out of accountability by Jamie Davies O’Leary (published January 25)
At the height of the pushback against Common Core-aligned testing in Ohio, HB 420 was born. It would have allowed schools and districts to exempt from certain accountability measures those students whose parents opted them out of taking standardized tests. We cautioned against the inadvertent deterrent effect on testing participation and the erosion of the state’s accountability system.
2. How will ESSA change Ohio’s school report cards? by Jessica Poiner (published June 13)
Ohio’s accountability and report card system was reasonably robust before the advent of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), but as we discussed in detail back in June, the myriad new reporting requirements would engender a number of changes for the Buckeye State to be in compliance with ESSA. Our point-by-point analysis is a must-read for anyone who wants to know what the state’s report card system will look like in the ESSA era.
3. ‘Elected’ school boards and the dangerous illusion of democracy by Aaron Churchill (published March 3)
Spurred by the suggestion that elected school boards are de facto “better” than appointed charter school boards, we dug into the data around that little slice of democracy known as the school board race and were not impressed.
4. The problem with graduation rate statistics by Aaron Churchill (published June 13)
The assertion that one school (or school type) should be judged more harshly because of its low graduation rate is missing the point, we argued in this piece. In fact, the way graduation rates are calculated in Ohio can mask important details about student mobility and its effects on both the “sending” and “receiving” schools’ graduation rates.
5. Where are Ohio’s teachers when we need them? by Jamie Davies O’Leary and Elaine Laux (published August 8)
Data released mid-year from the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) indicated a huge problem with teacher absenteeism across the country. Ohio was no exception and this dig into the data from our largest cities pointed out troublesome truths.
* * *
We hope you will visit Ohio Gadfly Daily throughout 2017 as these issues and more take center stage again.
NOTE: The State Board of Education of Ohio is today debating whether to change graduation requirements for the Class of 2018 and beyond. Below are the written remarks that Chad Aldis gave before the board today.
Thank you, President Gunlock and state board members, for allowing me to offer public comment today.
My name is Chad Aldis. I am the vice president for Ohio policy and advocacy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education-oriented nonprofit focused on research, analysis, and policy advocacy with offices in Columbus, Dayton, and Washington, D.C.
High school diplomas are supposed to signal whether a young person possesses a certain set of knowledge and skills. To its credit, Ohio is phasing in new graduation standards that will do that by better matching the expectations of post-secondary institutions, employers, and our armed forces. The new standards ask our young people to demonstrate readiness by either passing end of course exams (EOCs), achieving a remediation free ACT or SAT score, or earning an industry credential.
After years of low graduation standards, Ohio’s new requirements are a major step in the right direction. We need to set the expectations high for the young men and women who will become our business and civic leaders; scientists and engineers; teachers and law enforcement officers; and leaders in many other professions.
I’m not here to say that the decision on graduation standards is an easy one. No one should withhold a diploma from a deserving student. But at the same time, the state shouldn’t award meaningless credentials either. As you debate these issues, I would like to offer two suggestions.
First, I urge the board to exercise patience and not make a rash decision to adjust graduation standards. Over the past few years, we as a state have done much work to signal to families, taxpayers, and students that Ohio is raising expectations for all students. Backtracking prematurely on graduation standards would send the exact opposite message.
Let’s also keep in mind that many students are stepping up to meet these higher expectations. According to last month’s presentation by the Ohio Department of Education, 65 percent of the class of 2018 is on-track to meet the EOC requirements. This doesn’t even include students who will graduate via the career and technical pathway or will achieve the necessary EOC exam points after retakes. At the very least, we should see what the data look like after this school year before deciding whether changes are absolutely needed.
A bigger question is whether lowering the number of EOC exam points necessary to graduate is the right way to address the problem. While it’s one of the few public policy solutions available to you as the State Board, it’s a rather blunt instrument that could reduce the incentive to get every student ready for success after high school. Moreover, once lowered, this is going to be incredibly difficult to increase.
Over the longer term, it might make more sense for state leaders to work towards a multi-tiered approach to awarding diplomas. This would help to ensure that all hard-working students receive the credential they need to take their next step in life, while also creating an incentive structure that encourages our young men and women to aim for higher goals. A tiered approach would build on the honors diploma that Ohio already has in place, and could work like this.
At a base level, Ohio could create a standard-issue diploma—offered by either the state or local school districts—signifying that pupils have met their coursework requirements, though demonstrated only basic level skills on exams. One step up could be a diploma indicating college and career readiness. To earn this credential, students would need to meet rigorous benchmarks on end of course exams (probably 18 to 21 points), college admissions exams, or complete a demanding industry certification. This diploma would line up closely with Ohio’s new graduation requirements—perhaps even a little more challenging. At a third level, the state could award a prestigious diploma geared to the expectations of our most selective colleges and universities. To enhance their value and offer incentives to students, the state could even tie merit scholarships to the top two diplomas. Through continued transparency, school districts should continue to be incentivized to get as many students as possible to the college and career ready and honors diplomas.
A tiered approach to awarding diplomas recognizes that different students leave high school with a different set of knowledge and skills. But one might ask whether it would lower expectations for certain pupils. In my view, it would not: Every student in Ohio would have the opportunity—and hopefully the incentive—to aim for a diploma that is aligned with her long-term goals. On the other hand, lowering the number of points required on EOC exams would lower expectations for all Ohio students.
For some young people, attaining the standard Ohio diploma will be something they and their families celebrate and cheer. It will also open doors to employment and post-secondary education. For others, meeting the demands of the prestigious, tertiary level diploma will be a source of tremendous pride, and put them on the pathway to leadership in our highest-need career fields.
Ohio is taking an important step forward in raising its graduation standards. I encourage the board to exercise patience and not rush into a decision. At the same time, let’s explore a different approach to awarding diplomas—one that can incentivize students from across the entire academic spectrum to reach their full potential.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer public comment.
Back in 2012, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) began evaluating and ranking state charter laws based on eight policies they consider “cornerstones of charter school excellence.” These policies—quite reasonable in our view—are based on the principles of access, autonomy, and accountability and require each state to:
In their latest annual state policy analysis, NACSA notes a few key changes from last year. Michigan, for instance, gets props for establishing default closure for schools that perform beneath a minimum threshold. Missouri smoothed the way for high-performing charters to replicate, and now mandates annual charter school performance reports. Kudos also go out to Washington for the advocacy campaign that restored the state’s charter law, and to New York’s courts for upholding authorizers’ right to implement “a strong standard of renewal.”
As for rankings, the results are largely similar to the previous year’s report. The forty-four states with charter laws were evaluated based on the eight cornerstone policies, and could earn up to thirty-three points on NACSA’s rubric. The top three states—Indiana, Nevada, and Washington—tie for first place with perfect scores; Ohio and Alabama follow with thirty-two and thirty-one points, respectively.
The report notes that while some states, like Nevada, have risen in the rankings after adopting NACSA’s recommended policies in response to concerns over sector quality, other states, like Alabama, have newer charter laws and thus don’t yet have evidence of implementation outcomes. And it’s fair to point that that some states with great charter school outcomes—like New York—get only middling scores from NACSA—proof that not all that matters can be easily measured.
The lowest-ranking states—Oregon, Wyoming, Alaska, Maryland, Virginia, and Kansas in order—earn between five and zero points—with the last-place Sunflower State the only to get a glaring goose egg.
The most informative part of the report by far, though, is the individual state profiles and their detailed breakdown of each state’s status. These profiles don’t just show points earned, overall score, and ranking, but also include a description of the state’s charter landscape, a comparison between last year and this year’s scores, and specific recommendations to improve the quality of charter school oversight in that particular state.
Overall, NACSA’s latest report is a useful analysis that both identifies problems and offers solutions. Despite their focus on improving charter law, however, the authors are careful to admit that good policy is only part of the equation—committed advocates and rigorous implementation are also vital.
SOURCE: “On the Road to Great Charter Schools: State Policy Analysis 2016,” National Association of Charter School Authorizers, (December 2016).
