The Education Gadfly Weekly

For decades, Ohio policymakers have piled regulations onto public schools. Up to a point, this top-down, input-driven approach made sense, back in an era when too many students weren’t receiving even a rudimentary education, and when we weren’t nearly as fussy about academic results.

But times have changed. We now realize that students need strong minds—not just strong backs—to compete for jobs in a competitive and knowledge-based economy. Rigorous academic expectations are the “coin of the realm” in contemporary education policy—but there is also now near-universal consensus that youngsters deserve schooling experiences tailored to their individual needs, gifts, and interests.

These powerful forces demand a radically different approach to public education—and especially to the old regulatory regime that ruled it. The state must demand that schools raise their academic performance to ready all Ohio students for success in college or career. (Currently, 40 percent of Ohio’s college-going freshmen require some form of remediation.) In return, educators should have the autonomy to design instruction aimed at achieving these ambitious goals and to customize their approaches to accord with their pupils’ needs, capabilities, and circumstances. This means that the compliance-based approach to public education must give way to more flexible arrangements.

Ohio has taken some praiseworthy steps in this direction. The state is implementing rigorous school report cards that shine a bright light on academic results. Ohio families have more schooling options than ever before, including public charters, private-school vouchers, and an array of specialty schools like STEM, early-college, and technical-vocational schools. Legislators recently created a competitive-grant program (the Straight A Fund) that has catalyzed more than sixty innovative projects during the past two years.

Yet despite these valuable moves, the state continues to shackle its public schools with a burdensome regulatory regimen. Policymakers understand that this is a problem—and are considering ways to cut some of the red tape. Governor John Kasich and Senate President Keith Faber have both pointed to the need for education “deregulation,” and legislators have responded by introducing bills that would (if  enacted) free certain districts from a handful of burdensome state requirements. In our view, however, lawmakers could go much bigger and bolder.

Given the urgency, the promise—and the peril—of deregulating public schools, we sought to create a framework for Ohio policymakers. What should be on the table for deregulation? What are the issues that policymakers should not touch? What are the surest levers to provide educators and local communities with needed flexibility? Should legislators simply repeal laws and start over, or are there other alternatives? And what about local schools? If given greater freedom, how should they wield it, and how can state policymakers safeguard against abuse?

Such knotty questions deserved expert thinking. So we enlisted Paolo DeMaria of Education First (along with two of his colleagues) to author a policy brief that tackles these issues. Paolo is a veteran of Ohio’s policy debates, having worked in leadership roles at the Board of Regents, the Department of Education, and with the legislature and governor’s office. We could think of no one better suited to write a timely, discerning paper on deregulation within an Ohio policy context.

The anchoring principle of Paolo’s fine brief is that, if educational excellence is to be a top-priority for the state, policymakers must vest much greater operational authority with on-the-ground educators and leaders. We understand that this is commonsense. It dates back to the ancient idea of “subsidiarity.” This is the conviction that, whenever possible, the people closest to a problem should have the power as well as the obligation to address it.

It’s also a view that we at Fordham have been pressing for years. Indeed, empowering education leaders on the ground is one reason we support the charter-school model, which allows schools to operate under less state interference. In reports like Yearning to Break Free and Ohio at the Crossroads, we’ve also documented our belief that district schools should not have to toil under heavy regulation, either.

The present work fleshes out in greater detail the policy mechanisms by which Ohio policymakers can empower local leaders—and nurture the productive use of newfound autonomies. The paper recommends several avenues, including rolling back archaic legislation (we flag areas ripe for repeal), providing for a simple waiver process that districts can use, and creating a culture where deregulatory activity becomes normal and expected, not the exception.

The suggestions for repeal, while we acknowledge can be subject to controversy, are necessary areas of reform. They focus on giving districts the flexibility to fine-tune their staffing arrangements in order to ensure the very best education for their students. Some of these flexibilities have already been given to school leaders in Cleveland’s school district, STEM schools, and charters. We recommend that state policymakers provide the same staffing flexibilities for districts across Ohio.

The paper also insists—and we strongly concur—that granting regulatory relief hinges on an unwavering commitment to state-led, results-based accountability based on rigorous academic standards and assessments. Buckeye policymakers must ensure a fair and transparent system that holds all public schools and districts to account for the outcomes of all their students. Autonomy in exchange for honest-to-God accountability—that’s the bargain.

Experience shows the wisdom of this axiom: Government authorities can tell schools what to do, but they can’t force them to do things well. No government can regulate schools into excellence. Yet all of Ohio’s students deserve an excellent education, and that requires Ohio policymakers to adopt a flexible approach to public-school governance. Baby steps are already being made, and policymakers would do well to make even longer strides forward.

The Ohio Senate recently passed Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), legislation focused on “deregulation,” and sent it on to the House. The bill would allow high-performing districts to be exempt from certain state regulations. Judging from the testimony presented, the most controversial provisions dealt with teacher licensure.

SB 3 gives high-performing school districts two pieces of flexibility around teacher licensure. First, it allows qualifying districts to choose not to require its teachers be licensed in the grade levels they teach (though the bill maintains that a teacher must hold a license in the subject area they teach). Second, it allows these high-performing districts to hire teachers who don't hold an educator license but are instead qualified based on experience. Senate President Faber has argued that these provisions expose students to high-quality teachers they might not encounter otherwise—a retired math professor who wants to teach high school students, for instance. Opponents object to allowing unlicensed teachers into classrooms because important skills like behavior management and writing lesson plans aren’t necessarily intuitive, and their absence could outweigh the benefit of content knowledge and experience. This debate raises some important questions: Does teacher licensure matter? And is there evidence that supports one side of the debate over the other?

The answer to the second question depends largely on the answer to the first. There are studies that support teacher licensure and studies that devalue it. A 2003 summary of ninety-two research studies on teacher preparation perfectly illustrates the competing evidence. The summary finds that, in addition to strong content knowledge, knowledge of how to teach a particular subject is important. On the other hand, the summary also finds that while preparation in pedagogy contributes to effective teaching, it is unclear whether that preparation is best acquired through college coursework, field experiences, or on-the-job learning. A 2008 study of New York City teacher qualifications and their effect on student achievement found that improvements in teacher qualifications, especially in poor schools, seem to have resulted in improved student achievement. A different study demonstrates that private school students of fully certified teachers do not outperform students of private school teachers who are not certified.

Meanwhile, a brief out of Indiana University asserts that teachers who are fully certified through traditional teacher education programs have a more significant positive impact on student outcomes than teachers who are not. In contrast, a 2009 study found that Teach For America (TFA) corps members (most of whom are not trained via traditional teacher education programs) were significantly more effective than other new teachers in math, science, reading, and English language arts. The data further suggest that they are more comparable to experienced certified teachers than new teachers in terms of effectiveness. (You can find other studies on Teach For America here). Dan Goldhaber has found similar results from TFA teachers and concluded that there is only a weak link between teacher licensure requirements and student achievement.  

Questions about the need and value of teacher licenses, however, are far more nuanced than a simple yes-or-no answer about whether states should require them. Rick Hess, the director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, has written about this complexity. The crux of his argument is this: If licensure ensured mastery of essential knowledge and skills, then it would indeed be an effective gatekeeper for the profession. Unfortunately, licensure (at least in its current form) doesn’t actually ensure mastery. As a result, opening teaching to candidates who are outside the traditional license framework but have mastered essential knowledge and skills is a valid alternative. Hess is quick to acknowledge that not all candidates with "real world" experience are qualified to teach. Instead, he emphasizes the potential of these candidates and advocates judging them on a case-by-case basis rather than turning them away entirely. For example, Hess points out that “allowing someone to apply for a job is not a promise of employment; it simply permits an applicant to be hired if deemed superior to other candidates.” In other words, if policymakers leave hiring decisions up to local leaders, then those leaders should be able to select the candidate who best fulfills the needs of their district or school, regardless of whether this person has a license.

On the other hand, Sandra Stotsky  argues for strengthening teacher education programs, coursework, and licensure tests. Stotsky’s new book, An Empty Curriculum: The Need to Reform Teacher Licensing Regulations and Tests, unpacks this argument by pointing out that a stronger licensing system would increase the quality of the teaching force—which, in turn, would raise student achievement. It’s worth noting that Stotsky is uniquely credible on the licensure front: During her time at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, she supervised comprehensive revisions to the state’s teacher licensure standards (among other reforms). This experience provides the backdrop for her new book, in which she asserts that changes to the teacher licensing system were just as instrumental to the “Massachusetts education miracle” as high standards and assessments. In short, Stotsky indicates that state policymakers should be revamping the system by increasing the training teachers receive before entering the classroom—not opening the door to professionals who haven’t been formally trained at all.  

It is important to remember that SB 3 allows only high-performing districts to hire teachers without traditional licenses. These are the institutions that have proven that they can help their students succeed; it stands to reason that they wouldn’t hire inept teachers that could jeopardize this status. Furthermore, any school or district that slips out of the high-performing category loses its exemption status and must revert back to Ohio’s traditional licensure requirements. Nevertheless, policymakers in the House (where the bill now resides) would be wise to closely examine the viewpoints of Stotsky and Hess as well as the ways Ohio's current teacher licensure policies could be improved. 

Although charter schools were created to be laboratories of innovation, regulations and policies often prevent them from reaching their full potential. Take, for instance, teacher education and certification requirements that can obstruct schools from training educators in the manner that best meets their unique missions, values, and goals. According to a new case study from the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, a few highly successful charter schools have overcome these obstacles by creating their own teacher certification and master’s degree programs. These schools include High Tech High in San Diego; Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First in New York; and Match Education in Boston.

Each of these schools began their forays into teacher credentialing because they had trouble finding teachers whose “philosophies and methods” aligned with their missions. In addition, they found that many of the teachers they hired lacked the skills to be immediately successful in the classroom. By creating their own teacher training programs, these schools were able to connect formal teacher education with what happens on the ground in actual classrooms. Each program focuses on its parent school’s innovative instructional approach: For High Tech High, it’s project-based learning; for Relay (the graduate school created by Uncommon, KIPP, and Achievement First), it’s competency-based training; and for Match Education, it’s an emphasis on tutoring.

The study provides an overview of the programs’ focuses and structures, the teachers they train, tuition, accreditation status, and plans for future expansion. Interestingly, each program includes a performance-based graduation requirement. High Tech High has different requirements for their various programs including state performance assessments or final projects; Relay requires that second-year candidates in their Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) and teaching residency programs demonstrate that their students achieved at least one year of academic growth using quantitative and qualitative measures; and Match requires that second-year candidates in their Master in Effective Teaching (MET) program outperform rookie teachers who aren’t trained by Match on an evaluation system that includes principal observations and student survey data.

Unfortunately, the programs also share common obstacles, the two largest of which are (1) meeting the regulatory requirements necessary to obtain state and accreditation approval and (2) developing revenue and cost structures that allow for a sustainable business model. While the process of overcoming these obstacles took years (in some cases, it’s still ongoing), each of these programs offers a valuable look at the benefits of allowing innovative schools to train teachers in customized ways. Kudos to these charter schools for stepping up to the plate and strengthening teacher preparation.

SOURCE: Thomas Arnett, “Startup Teacher Education: A Fresh Take on Teacher Credentialing,” Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation (June 2015).

Over the past year, Ohio legislators have been focusing on the state’s need to deregulate its education system. The Ohio Senate recently passed Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), legislation focused on deregulation and flexibility for high-performing districts. Governor Kasich has also brought up the subject. But what exactly does deregulation mean? How can the state and local districts deregulate without sacrificing accountability, and which areas are ready to be cut free from red tape?

To answer these questions, Fordham commissioned its newest publication, Getting Out of the Way: Education Flexibility to Boost Innovation and Improvement in Ohio. This report highlights the key issues policymakers need to consider when loosening the regulatory grip on public schools, and also offers several recommendations for local and state leaders.

One of the report’s authors, Education First’s Paolo DeMaria, presented the findings and recommendations at a breakfast event on June 11. DeMaria began his presentation by explaining why deregulation matters and why this is an ideal moment to pursue deregulation. (For news coverage of the event, see here and here.) After summarizing how some Ohio districts already utilize deregulation to innovate, DeMaria outlined his recommendations. (For more on the recommendations and our take, see the report’s foreword.)

Paolo DeMaria presents the findings

Next, a panel moderated by Education First’s Susan Bodary discussed the implications and difficulties of effective deregulation. The discussants included Tom Ash of the Buckeye Association of School Administrators; Steve Dackin of Columbus State Community College (and formerly of Reynoldsburg Public Schools); C. Todd Jones, a member of the State Board of Education; and Marc Schare, vice president of the Worthington City Schools Board of Education.

From left to right: Susan Bodary, Tom Ash, Marc Schare, C. Todd Jones, and Steve Dackin

Each panelist emphasized that schools are constrained by burdensome regulations—regulations that often don’t contribute to improving outcomes for kids. Marc Schare reinforced this point by discussing the vast number of regulations that school boards are subject to, including state and federal requirements and collective bargaining agreements. Schare said that such agreements limit his district’s ability “to define a career ladder” for highly effective teachers who want to move up in the ranks. A better option, he added, would be to use “compensation for strategic purposes,” such as paying in-demand or highly effective teachers more. Tom Ash pointed out that while districts are certainly subject to many regulations, they also tend to overregulate themselves. These locally imposed regulations, he noted, often “tie the hands of teachers in the classroom.”

Marc Schare shows a list of proposed rules and regulations

DeMaria remarked at the start of the event, “There's a part of us that wants to find the magic bullet....If we find it and just tell people to do it, it'll be fine. But experience shows that success looks different in various states and districts.” He’s correct, of course: There’s no easy fix in education. Lawmakers would do well to listen to his advice and that of the other panelists, who have real experience facing too many well-intended but counterproductive regulations. 

Teaching is hard. (Even if I weren’t a former high school teacher I would know that.) And it’s particularly hard when you feel like those who shape education policy are constantly changing the game for reasons that have nothing to do with what’s best for students. For instance, Ohio educators have discussed how Common Core is successful in their classrooms over and over and over and over and over  again. And yet here we are, facing yet another standards repeal bill in the House. Unfortunately, this new bill’s attempt to repeal standards that are working in Ohio classrooms is even more unfair to teachers than previous iterations.

Previous attempts to repeal Common Core have included ridiculous requirements, such as forcing teachers to teach three separate sets of standards in four years. Unsurprisingly, that one failed to gain much traction. Even without mandating three sets of standards, HB 212 found a way to be worse. It requires that the board adopt new standards “not later than June 30, 2015.” Think about the implications: With no date given for when these standards are to go into use other than the June 30 adoption deadline, one must assume that the standards adopted on June 30 are intended for immediate use in the upcoming 2015–16 school year. That means that if this bill somehow miraculously gets passed out of committee, out of the House, out of the Senate, and doesn’t get vetoed by Governor Kasich—all in the next month—then teachers throughout the state will have less than two months to internalize the new standards, plan their curriculum and local assessments around the standards, and be ready for kids on the first day. Considering we’re five years into Common Core implementation and teachers are still learning to implement the standards, policymakers should be supremely concerned about asking teachers to master an entirely new set of standards in sixty days. And teachers should be horrified at the prospect.

But there’s even more: The bill has completely erased the requirement in current law for the state board to create a model curriculum. A model curriculum is based on the state’s academic standards and is designed to give schools an exemplar for how to design curricula aligned to state standards and assessments. Ohio Revised Code explicitly states that schools are not required “to utilize all or any part” of the model curriculum. Why, then, does HB 212 remove it?

I wish I could make the argument that removing model curricula is a step toward deregulation, but I can’t, because a model curriculum isn’t a regulation that schools have to follow. It’s an aid designed to support teachers, curriculum specialists, and anyone else in charge of making sure that curricula meet the needs of students. Removing something designed to support teachers—particularly during a hasty transition when they will most need models and of how to implement new standards—shows a lack of consideration for them. Sure, teachers might be able to scrounge up some curriculum maps or lesson plans from Massachusetts teachers who taught the Bay State’s pre-2010 standards. But considering how many Common Core opponents have fallen back on the claim that Common Core wasn’t made in Ohio and thus shouldn’t be used in Ohio, do policymakers really want to tell Buckeye teachers to use plans designed for kids from other parts of the nation? If HB 212 becomes law, not only will schools and teachers be forced to adjust to new standards within sixty days, they won’t have any guidance at all from our state board on how to operationalize the standards. Talk about starting from scratch. 

Need more craziness?  We’re not done yet. Later provisions in the bill demolish the state’s teacher evaluation system. Some teachers would undoubtedly rejoice at this move. But by removing the teacher evaluation system, bill sponsors seem to believe they’ve removed the only thing standing in the way of making a whiplash standards change acceptable to teachers—a trade-off, of sorts. If that’s the case, then bill sponsors are ignoring the fact that effective evaluation systems can actually be good for teachers. Luke Kohlmoos, who led Tennessee’s implementation of teacher evaluations, recently analyzed the evaluation data coming out of the Volunteer State and found that one of the working conditions associated with the retention of highly effective teachers is a functional evaluation. Receiving regular, high-quality feedback is an important part of improving practice, and for some teachers, this feedback only occurs via the state’s evaluation system. Robbing teachers of their chance to get better is unfair to teachers, and especially to kids.

To be clear, Ohio’s teacher evaluation system isn't perfect; work needs to be done in order to make it more effective. But there are ways to fix Ohio's system rather than throwing it out completely—ways that are endorsed by teachers because they make systems more reliable and fair. Policymakers would be right to pay attention to needed changes. A standalone bill would demonstrate their commitment to getting the evaluation system right without the distraction of other issues.

Unfortunately, HB 212 isn’t designed to address the flaws in the teacher evaluation system. Instead, HB 212 is a Common Core repeal bill that crudely repeals the teacher evaluation system. But getting rid of test-linked evaluations doesn’t make it okay to change standards again (especially when they’re working), ask teachers to learn those new standards in two months, or take away a useful support structure. Even worse, asking teachers who support the standards but have reservations about the evaluation system to make an impossible choice—between standards that help their students and an evaluation system that they may perceive to be unfair—is just plain wrong. 

Those of us who have hoped Common Core would hasten the demise of dry and deleterious skills-driven literacy practices at the elementary level can only be heartened by Education Week’s recent in-depth report on building early literacy skills. The package is deeply practice-based and will cheer those who have championed the cause of content knowledge and vocabulary development as a means of raising proficiency—particularly among low-income kids, for whom early reading success (or lack thereof) establishes a trajectory that is devilishly hard to alter.

Highlights include Catherine Gewertz’s first-rate dispatch on the transformation of early-grade read-alouds: Teachers increasingly ask “text-dependent” questions that can only be answered with “detailed understanding of the material, rather than from students’ own experience.” She focuses on a collaborative effort of more than three hundred teachers called the Read-Aloud Project, which was launched by the Council of Great City Schools and Student Achievement Partners.

One of the most important pieces in the package ever-so-slightly misses its mark. Liana Heiten’s report on vocabulary development correctly notes—heavens be praised—the limits of direct vocabulary instruction. (Do the math: there’s not enough time to grow the fifty-thousand-word vocabulary of a literate adult by memorization or word study alone.) “A better approach, some say, is to have students focus on a topic—anything from the musculatory system to the Great Depression to Greek myths,” she writes. This is kinda, sorta right, but it’s misleading to say that the best way to grow rich in “tier-two” academic vocabulary is “by becoming expert in one particular topic.” Single-subject expertise isn’t the secret sauce; the key is familiarity with a broad range of subjects, enabling young readers to make inferences smoothly and reflexively across topics. A child, for example, may read that “annual flooding in the Nile Delta made Egypt ideal for agriculture.” If she’s doing a unit on ancient Egypt, she has the background knowledge to contextualize the unfamiliar word “annual.” If she knows nothing of Egypt and the Nile, or has no idea what agriculture or a delta is, then “annual” is just one more word in a stew of non-comprehension. The child who knows those things learns a new word; the child who doesn’t falls one more word behind. Repeated exposure to new words in familiar contexts in and out of school—Native Americans observed annual rituals; it’s time for your annual check up; some plants are annuals while others are perennials—solidifies the child’s understanding until the word becomes part of her working vocabulary, even without explicit study. In elementary school, reading comprehension and vocabulary development are key, and breadth of knowledge builds both.

I hope I’ll be forgiven for arguing what may seem like a point of orthodoxy, but these details matter. Still, let it not overwhelm the broader takeaway: Those of us who have long argued for content-rich curricula and a laser-like focus on elementary school will find much to like in Education Week’s package on building early literacy. For low-SES students, it gets late early.

SOURCE: “Building Literacy Skills: The state of reading instruction in grades K–3,” Education Week (May 2015).