The Education Gadfly Weekly

Ohio Gadfly readers won’t be surprised to know that we were thrilled to see Governor John Kasich strongly endorse charter school reforms that are similar to those we proposed in December—and have been seeking for years before that. We were particularly encouraged that governor wants to combine significantly stronger charter school oversight with greater funding for high-performing schools. His is exactly the right equation.

That’s because lax quality control and paltry funding are the underlying causes of Ohio’s relatively weak charter sector. Quality has lagged in large part because Ohio charter law too vaguely defines the powers and responsibilities of each actor in the charter-governing system. It also treats charters as second-class public schools. They receive less overall taxpayer funding and garner scant facilities support.

Kasich’s solution is to tie greater consequences and incentives to the state’s new Quality Sponsor Practices Review (QSPR). In particular, he would empower the Ohio Department of Education to shut down sponsors (i.e., authorizers) that receive low ratings on the QSPR; meanwhile, he would make charters overseen by high-ranking sponsors (yes, including Fordham) eligible for $25 million in additional facilities funding.

So what is the QSPR? Developed over several years, it is based on the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) Principles & Standards—widely considered the gold standard for authorizing practices. It has three components:

• Academic performance of a sponsor’s schools
• Compliance with applicable laws and rules
• Adherence to quality sponsoring practices prescribed by the department (and in line with NACSA’s principles)

The review consists of an introductory meeting with the sponsor evaluation team (a combination of Ohio Department of Education and external consultants), a site visit to the sponsor’s schools and an interview with school personnel, an extensive document submission, review of those submissions by the team, and an interview with the sponsor. Sponsors are then issued an overall rating—either Exemplary, Effective, Ineffective, or Emerging (which is only for new sponsors and only for the first two years).

The idea is to improve school quality by ensuring that only strong sponsors monitor and oversee charter schools. This is a smart move, and here’s why:

First, the QSPR, by design, sets a high bar for sponsor performance. It identifies in detail strong and weak sponsorship practices, which heretofore had not been done in Ohio. Combined with the governor’s proposal to introduce a fifth rating category, Poor, which would lead sponsors to immediately lose their ability to oversee schools, it will get the worst ones out of the business entirely—and quickly.

Second, because of increased transparency around sponsor practices (e.g., how we evaluate applicants, conduct site visits, analyze school finances, provide technical assistance, etc.), those who remain in the business will not only have incentive to improve but will also have a trove of data (overseen by the Ohio Department of Education) on which to base improvement. Those sponsors ranked Effective or Ineffective would know what they need to do to improve and would have access to the conduct and practices of those sponsors ranked Exemplary. For example, if Sponsor A is very good at financial oversight, they become a resource to the laggards.

Third, the overall quality of charter schools in the state will likely improve. Sponsors are the gatekeepers for new charter schools, the monitors of existing schools, and the decision-makers regarding probation, renewal, non-renewal, and closure.  Part of the QSPR process focuses on six central sponsorship functions that are scrutinized by an evaluation team: organizational commitment and capacity, charter school application process and decision making, charter school performance contracting, school oversight and evaluation, charter school contract termination and renewal decision-making, and technical assistance. If implemented with fidelity, the QSPR will help boost sponsor capacity in these areas. 

We know firsthand that the department’s new QSPR process is rigorous; we underwent the review during the latter half of 2014, submitting hundreds of documents that went back several years in order to demonstrate how we conduct our work. The evaluation team, which included a NACSA consultant, reviewed all our submissions, gathered additional information from our schools, and interviewed our staff and board members. The process took several months, and the outcome was a fair and transparent report about how we do the work of sponsoring our schools.

Implemented well and at scale, the QSPR process, along with thoughtful incentives and sanctions and high expectations, will change the landscape for the better. Kudos to the governor for realizing this and making sponsors (and the sponsor evaluation) a key underpinning of his reform strategy.  

Like Moses in the wilderness, state policymakers have to cope with incessant grumbling—in their case over standardized testing. Last year, Ohio legislators compromised on testing and accountability, including delaying the implementation of Ohio’s new school report cards, waiving the consequences for poor performance in the 2014–15 school year, ditching the Algebra II end-of-course exam, and tweaking the teacher evaluation system by allowing schools to reduce the weight of the test-based accountability measure.

As the new General Assembly gears up in 2015, lawmakers will face even greater pressure to water down testing and accountability. Already, two high-priority bills have been introduced with provisions that, if passed, would further weaken Ohio’s new testing and accountability framework. The first provision is a test-time cap; the second is a delay on the stakes associated with Ohio’s new high school tests. Both provisions, while politically popular and seemingly insignificant, are flawed and should be rejected.

Test-time caps

Senate Bill 3 is designed to identify areas ripe for deregulation in education—a needed and overdue endeavor. Some of the recommendations in the bill are sound, like eliminating the needless third-grade test given in the fall. But one recommendation is a hard cap on testing time: No more than 2 percent of a student’s school year can be dedicated to state and district standardized tests, and less than 1 percent can be used to prepare for them (i.e., time taken on “practice” or “diagnostic” tests). If passed, the cap would apply starting in 2015–16.[1]

There are several problems with these provisions. First, the hard cap at 2 percent has the potential to cause trouble at the high school level. As the table below displays, while fifth graders who take three required state exams are under the 2 percent cap, under certain conditions, high school students are at the cap—technically over by a smidgen—if they take five of the end-of-course exams (EOCs) in one year. Why should the state potentially deny any high school student who wants (or needs) to take five or more of the seven EOCs in a single school year? In a bill that seeks to give greater flexibility to schools, it is ironic that the state would set a cap on testing time that could box-in high schools and their students.

[[{"fid":"114051","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"class":"media-element file-default"}}]]

Source: Ohio Department of Education, Guidance on PARCC/AIR Session Times and Guidance on Schedule Change from Days to Hours Note: The EOCs are being phased in this year, with high school freshman (class of 2018) being the first cohort to take the new assessments.

Second, the 1 percent cap on test preparation micromanages school time. Although it is much maligned these days, not all test prep is bad; in fact, done well, it may actually enhance learning. For example, my entire AP U.S. history class was structured as year-long test prep, with practice tests along the way. What if a school wanted to design its curriculum and “practice” tests around readying students for PARCC or the EOCs? Is this instructional strategy now outlawed? While there may be reason enough to cut certain types of “test prep,” this should not be a regulatory role of the state (probably the duty of principals to monitor). In fact, the cap on test preparation is yet another case of government overreach into how local schools are run.

Finally, even if we agreed that hard test-time caps were absolutely necessary and that the state must intervene, how would state authorities enforce it? Would the provision force teachers to painstakingly document how class time is used (as if there aren’t enough paperwork requirements already)? Would the state need to hire auditors to investigate districts’ compliance? And if a school exceeds the cap, what is the penalty—curriculum jail? 

The testing cap has good intentions, aiming to alleviate a public concern. But the law also has some potential negative consequences that are the exact opposite of deregulation. Moreover, there are more dubious uses of school time than testing (pep rallies, study halls, and movies all come to mind). Someone—just not the state—ought to put a cap on these things!

Delaying the stakes on the graduation exams

The House has also introduced emergency legislation (House Bill 7) that would automatically render immaterial the 2014–15 results on high school students’ EOCs as they apply to their graduation requirements. (Starting with this year’s freshman—the class of 2018—students are now required to reach a cumulative score on the seven EOCs to graduate or seek an alternative pathway to graduation.)

The bill appears at least partly motivated by Common Core opponents who want to shelter students from the consequences of “opting out” of state testing. (The bill allows retakes on an EOC if students are absent “for any reason.”) State lawmakers should not endorse this approach, since it encourages teenagers to gamble with their futures. Imagine you’re a ninth-grade student opting out of your EOCs, hoping to get a high enough ACT score to graduate (an alternative pathway). But you fall short on the ACT as a junior. You’ll have to take the EOCs again in twelfth grade with your diploma on the line—three years after you completed the course.  Talk about high stakes

Meanwhile, as the bill voids all 2014–15 EOC scores, what about the students who do well on this year’s EOCs? Shouldn’t their test results be applied favorably toward their graduation requirements? The students worked hard for their test scores, and the state should not deny them credit. In their haste to satisfy a special-interest group (“opt outers”), state legislators seem to have forgotten about the thousands of Ohio students who will do well on their EOCs this year.

The debate over standardized testing has reached a fever pitch. But this is nothing new. Adults have disdained tests for years, maybe more so than the students who take them. In 2004, for instance, the Dayton Daily News reported the great consternation over the brand-new Ohio Graduation Tests. One professor even called these new exams “an unvarnished instance of testing immorality.” Funny how history repeats itself; today, state testing is again the villain—and that’s okay. But we need to do testing and accountability right. No more grumping, delaying, diluting, and capping state tests. Bring on the state’s new college-and-career ready tests; Ohio’s youngsters are up to the task. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation has produced a three-minute video looking at the purpose of assessments. With the ongoing debate about testing (even in this issue of Gadfly), it’s easy to forget why it’s important.

Cheers to State Representatives Mike Dovilla and Kristina Roegner. They are the sponsors of House Bill 2, a high-priority bill introduced early in the 131^st General Assembly that would remedy long-neglected deficiencies in Ohio’s charter school law, including in transparency, sponsor/school relationships, board roles, and accountability.

Cheers to Governor John Kasich, whose FY 2016–17 state budget also includes important charter school reforms, especially in the area of sponsor quality (which you can read about elsewhere in this issue of Ohio Gadfly). While there are incentives being proffered for achieving higher quality, it should not be overlooked just how much the bar is being raised in Ohio. If the governor is successful, sponsors and schools who fail to reach the mark will not just miss out on incentives; they will be out of the education business.

Jeers to the drawing of false battle lines. Walnut Township Schools in rural Fairfield County is heading for a fiscal abyss. They must cut nearly a million dollars from their budget by February 10 or risk being placed under fiscal emergency by the state. At an emergency board meeting on February 4, a budget-cutting plan was unanimously approved, which still might not be enough to keep them away from state oversight. But two members said on the record they were only buying time to avoid the emergency declaration and have no intention of following through on the voted plan. Why? They see the state as an enemy. At a February 2 school board meeting, the Ohio Department of Education’s representative told them: “I’ve never seen more harm done to a school district than with a fiscal emergency.” But the state can move obstacles and cut through red tape in a way that districts simply cannot do on their own. That is especially true of those in financial trouble. Many districts (notably Mansfield, Monroe, Ledgemont, and Cloverleaf in the last year alone) have found the state’s assistance to be Cheer-worthy. So why not put students and families first, skip the overheated rhetoric and false demonization of one another, and get down to solving the real problems?

The 2015 legislative session is gearing up, and Common Core will again feature prominently in the education agenda. Longtime Core opponent Representative Andy Thompson told the Plain Dealer to "count on" another repeal attempt, and new House education committee chair Bill Hayes has said that he expects Common Core to continue to be a source of debate. Hayes has acknowledged the importance of high standards and local control and has pledged to “have an open ear and give everyone a fair hearing.” While the prospect of even more testimony may leave many wary of another months-long circus, continued civil discourse—from both sides of an issue—is what makes our democracy work. (It’s also a Common Core standard, for the record.)

So before the debate begins anew, let’s revisit what we learned from the many hours of testimony, media coverage, and debate that occurred in 2014.

Lesson One: There is widespread support for Common Core

It’s no secret that Common Core support in Ohio has been diverse and widespread from the start. Various newspapers have spotlighted Ohioans who support Common Core. The business community has been a staunch supporter. The governor has voiced his support. Educators have discussed how they are successfully implementing Common Core in their classrooms over and over and over and over and over  again. The lesson from hours of testimony at repeal hearings was clear: Plenty of Ohioans support the Common Core. 

Lesson Two: Opponents’ arguments are often misleading

Unfortunately, despite this resounding support, Common Core opponents continued to make the same misleading arguments. Last year, Ohio newspapers fact-checked arguments against Common Core and pointed out the flaws in previous repeal attempts. Others called out misinformation on math and English language arts concerns.

The most stubborn arguments challenged the process by which Common Core arrived in Ohio. Common Core opponents claimed that too little was done to research Common Core before its adoption in Ohio in 2010. Fordham has addressed this before, but it’s worth pointing out again that Ohioans played a significant role in crafting and revising the Common Core.  In 2008, Ohio conducted an international benchmarking study that was used as a basis for the eventual adoption of the Common Core. Ohioans had opportunities to give feedback as the standards were developed. Two meetings were held in June 2009 to examine the Common Core and to solicit feedback; these meetings included fifty-five educational stakeholder groups and two hundred teachers from four content areas. Other stakeholders also had the chance to provide feedback, and over seven hundred responses were received. The Ohio Department of Education presented Common Core—at a public meeting—to the House and the Senate Education Committees before the Board of Education adopted the standards. Given all this evidence, it’s difficult to see how opponents can argue that Ohio blindly accepted Common Core.

Lesson Three: Legislators must acknowledge the current situation

Even if the argument that the standards did not get a proper vetting when Ohio adopted them were true (it’s not), legislators wisely added another level of scrutiny with the passage of HB 487. The bill creates committees to regularly review the standards. The review committees have already started meeting—and they definitely have members from both sides of the debate.  

The push to repeal Common Core also fails to acknowledge how difficult another standards transition would be for schools. Districts have been implementing Common Core for five years. Teachers say it’s working. Yet opponents continue to advocate not just for a repeal, but for “temporary standards” (read: Massachusetts’s pre-Common Core standards) and an entirely new set of standards. The assumption that teachers and students can suddenly shift to different sets of standards without chaos and negative consequences is out of touch—it ignores what's happening in classrooms.

***

The debate over Common Core in 2014 was long and heated, but in 2015, it doesn’t need to be—if we take into account the lessons we’ve already learned. Even if legislators choose to ignore every previous piece of testimony, media coverage, and debate in exchange for a whole new round of hearings, there is one thing they must eventually face: the stagnating achievement of Buckeye students. Ohio may earn relatively high rankings on some reports, but these rankings hide low proficiency rates. Upon arriving on a college campus, 40 percent of Ohio graduates take remediation courses. A whopping 68 percent of Ohio ACT takers didn't meet the mark last year to be considered college-ready. Although high standards alone won’t solve all these problems, Ohio students need and deserve high expectations to excel in school and in life. No student should spend thirteen years of his or her life passing courses and state tests only to wind up in college remediation or a dead-end job. That’s the problem Common Core seeks to address, and that’s why state policymakers should fight for its full implementation even as the political debate rages on. 

New York City’s Independent Budget Office (IBO) has released an updated Schools Brief which makes a few important tweaks to an earlier analysis of attrition rates for charters and traditional public schools. The original study followed students from kindergarten through third grade, ending in 2012–13; the additional data is for 2013–14, when most of the students were in fourth grade. Two of the major findings in the original report have not changed significantly: 1) On average, charter school students remain at their schools at a higher rate than their traditional school counterparts (64 percent vs. 56 percent after four years); and 2) students at charters and traditional schools leave the New York City public school system at the same rate. The first finding is good news to charter school advocates in New York, since recent research suggests that student retention is one factor in overall charter improvement. But the second finding should worry public-education supporters and city officials alike. Between transient populations whose needs (both educational and otherwise) are not being met and families leaving the city’s public schools entirely for parts unknown, it is clear that many students are simply not staying in New York City public schools. It could even be argued that the “retention rate” numbers IBO reports are simply those students who haven’t left yet. As we discovered here in Ohio not too long ago, the causes of student mobility often have little to do with education, but its consequences affect the quality of the education received by students and offered by the system. Perhaps more interesting is the updated finding on attrition of students with special needs. The IBO tweaked their definition to more closely align with NYDOE’s reporting of special-needs students and found far more such students in charter schools than they had previously noted, gainsaying arguments that charter schools push out students with special needs. Sadly, while students with special needs remained in their charter schools at a higher rate than they did in their traditional district schools, the retention rates of both are still very low after four years of data (53 percent vs. 49 percent). Overall, there’s very little positive news here for anyone interested in keeping urban families in the city and in public schools, although we can hope that those students moving out of the system entirely are at least finding good fits elsewhere.

SOURCE: New York City Independent Budget Office, “Comparing Student Attrition Rates at Charter Schools and Nearby Traditional Public Schools” (January 2015).