The Education Gadfly Weekly

Education reformers often tout that school choice will create more competition, leading to better performance in both traditional and non-traditional schools. In spite of this, researchers have been unable to consistently show a correlation between competition and school performance, creating ammunition for those who oppose school choice. A part of the problem is how the topic is researched. In their report, Susanna Loeb and Matthew Kasman explain that researchers focus on specific aspects of competition (i.e. school density in an area, the transfer rates of students) without factoring the perceptions of the school leaders who are responsible for changing curriculum and instruction. Loeb and Kasman analyzed data and surveys from Milwaukee Public Schools to determine what affect a principal’s perception of competition and how those school leaders respond. 

The results are surprising- the researchers reported that the number of schools in an area had little correlation with the perception of competition.  Conversely, the principals did report a greater sense of competition when their student transfer rates were higher and when they taught low and high achieving students. One potential reason for this is that schools specifically designed to serve these students such as charters succeeded in drawing students from other schools. Unfortunately, the researchers also found that principals were more likely to respond to competition by adjusting their outreach policies rather than making adjustments to their curriculum and instruction.

In order to develop curriculum and instruction changes on the school level, school choice advocates must shift some of their attention to improving already established schools so they attract more of their targeted students. Advocates must also create more avenues to help parents use clear and accessible data to determine what school is right for their child instead of allowing them to be convinced by advertisement efforts.

Susanna Loeb and Matthew Kasman, “Principals’ Perceptions of Competition for Students in Milwaukee School” (Association of Education Finance and Policy Journal, vol. 8, no. 1 2013)

In October, 2011, The Pew Charitable Trusts released a report called Closing Public Schools in Philadelphia: Lessons from Six Urban Districts, which looked at the process of school building closure in a number of urban districts to help inform the process of closure and repurposing of a potentially large number of buildings in Philadelphia. The process in Philadelphia was expected to take at least two years to complete.

And now a follow-up report has been released that looks at the reality of what happened in Philadelphia and a number of other cities after their “surplus” buildings were closed.  Shuttered Public Schools: The Struggle to Bring Old Buildings New Life looks at the realities of finding new uses for old school buildings in Atlanta, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Mo., Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Tulsa and Washington as well as Philadelphia (where, over two years later, as many as 37 buildings still remain to be closed before they can even reach the “repurposing” stage).

Among the key findings:

• School districts are not typically set up to become real estate brokers, resulting in slow and problematic transactions;
• Many buildings remain unsold due to multiple difficulties including neighborhood resistance to change of use, the economic downturn, and size and age of buildings;
• Unsold/unleased buildings remain a drain on districts’ finances due to security and maintenance costs until they are either repurposed or sold.

Some good news for the charter sector: of the buildings sold or leased in the cities under study, more than 40 percent went to charter schools. There is brief mention in the piece on recent developments in Cincinnati (the court challenge which resulted in the district’s deed restrictions against charter reuse of buildings being ruled unconstitutional) and Cleveland (the mayor’s transformation plan calls for stronger district-charter partnerships). It is to be hoped that these and other efforts across the state will result in an increase in charter school reuse of existing school buildings, which would appear from this report to be a win for all parties.

Are states backtracking or pushing ahead with the implementation of the Common Core? Education First and Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) collaborated to develop Moving Forward which provides clues to states’ progress. Following-up on their summer 2011 survey of state education agency officials, Education First and the EPE Research Center conducted their second survey in summer 2012. The survey’s goal was to evaluate the progress in implementation within three key areas: teacher professional development, curriculum guides and instructional materials, and teacher-evaluation systems. The researchers found that (1) most states are making progress in implementation, (2) states are furthest along in teacher professional development to prepare teachers for these new academic standards, and (3) six states reported setbacks in implementation.

Per finding one, the study reports that twenty-one states (including Ohio) have fully-developed plans in all three areas of implementation. This is a three-fold increase compared to 2011, when only seven states reported fully-developed plans in all three areas. Per finding two, the researchers found that thirty-seven states had fully-developed plans for teacher professional development while only thirty states had fully-developed plans for curriculum guides and teacher-evaluation systems. Per finding three, the study found that six states—Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin—backtracked in at least one of the three key implementation areas. Of these six states, Colorado, Connecticut, and Indiana reported setbacks in two of the three areas- all backtracking in teacher professional development and curriculum guides.

Whether the Common Core is faithfully implemented and whether it will take permanent hold in America’s math and English language arts classrooms remains an open question. The changes will produce pain, and as such, will surely tempt policymakers and local school leaders to backtrack from a faithful implementation of the Common Core, as is happening in states like Indiana and Alabama. However, the findings from this report are mostly encouraging as they document the speedy progress that states have made to support the implementation of the Common Core in local districts.

Susanna Loeb and Matthew Kasman, “Principals’ Perceptions of Competition for Students in Milwaukee School” (Association of Education Finance and Policy Journal, vol. 8, no. 1 2013)

Education reformers often tout that school choice will create more competition, leading to better performance in both traditional and non-traditional schools. In spite of this, researchers have been unable to consistently show a correlation between competition and school performance, creating ammunition for those who oppose school choice. A part of the problem is how the topic is researched. In their report, Susanna Loeb and Matthew Kasman explain that researchers focus on specific aspects of competition (i.e. school density in an area, the transfer rates of students) without factoring the perceptions of the school leaders who are responsible for changing curriculum and instruction. Loeb and Kasman analyzed data and surveys from Milwaukee Public Schools to determine what affect a principal’s perception of competition and how those school leaders respond. 

The results are surprising- the researchers reported that the number of schools in an area had little correlation with the perception of competition.  Conversely, the principals did report a greater sense of competition when their student transfer rates were higher and when they taught low and high achieving students. One potential reason for this is that schools specifically designed to serve these students such as charters succeeded in drawing students from other schools. Unfortunately, the researchers also found that principals were more likely to respond to competition by adjusting their outreach policies rather than making adjustments to their curriculum and instruction.

In order to develop curriculum and instruction changes on the school level, school choice advocates must shift some of their attention to improving already established schools so they attract more of their targeted students. Advocates must also create more avenues to help parents use clear and accessible data to determine what school is right for their child instead of allowing them to be convinced by advertisement efforts.

Last week Ohio Auditor of State Dave Yost reported that nine school districts manipulated student attendance data to improve their academic performance results. In response to these findings, Yost offered up thirteen recommendations for reforming Ohio’s system of reporting student enrollment. In an op-ed in Saturday’s Columbus Dispatch, he outlined his primary recommendation: Schools should count students and report enrollment more frequently than once per year.  Specifically, Yost said:

Ohio sends cash to local school systems based on the number of students in the school during Count Week in October each year. September doesn’t matter, and you don’t need to remember November — or January or February. Good attendance during one week locks in a year of state funding.

Money changes things. It drives behavior, frames decisions and affects thinking — sometimes in ways we don’t foresee or want. That’s one of the things I discovered during our statewide audit of attendance practices in schools.

Ohio should count kids every day, not once a year. A year-long financial incentive would drive attendance every day. The good news is that we know how to get the kids in school. Lining up the financial incentives with the goal of regular attendance would help keep the effort going.

Counting kids every day also would provide a penalty for “scrubbing” — the practice of artificially interrupting a child’s reported attendance, which removes his test scores from the school’s annual grade card. Under an every-day counting system, if the child isn’t in school, the money wouldn't flow.

Some district superintendents have complained that increased reporting of enrollment would be a time-consuming burden on their staff.  They vigorously fought to eliminate the second count week, in February, that the state had implemented several years ago.  Despite these objections, Ohio has a model in place for regular enrollment checks: charter schools.  Charter schools report enrollment monthly and each payment they receive from the state is adjusted based on the most recent enrollment count.  Schools large and small, rural and urban, independent and operated by major management companies have figured this system out and abide by it.  If they don’t, their funding is impacted.  As Auditor Yost said, money drives behavior.

What would be the financial impact of districts reporting enrollment more than once a year? We asked just that question in our recent study of statewide student mobility, conducted by Community Research Partners (CRP).  CRP compared the number of students enrolled during October count week with the number of students enrolled each month throughout the school year.  They found that 78 percent of school districts would receive less funding overall because of students leaving November through May. For example, using 2010-11 enrollment and funding data for six major urban districts, Table 1 shows the how many students were enrolled during count week versus total enrolled throughout the year and the impact this difference would have on the districts’ state funding.

These dollars are separate from any guarantee funding districts receive under the school funding formula. And while most districts would lose funding if students were counted more frequently, 21 percent of districts would receive more. (One percent, or four districts, would not see a net change in funding if enrollment reporting was changed.)

Auditor Yost is right: Kids should count all year long, and money should go to the school a child is actually attending.  Ohio has a tested model for doing just that in its 300+ charter schools.  The state should develop a similar system for districts. 

Education reformers often tout that school choice will create more competition, leading to better performance in both traditional and non-traditional schools. In spite of this, researchers have been unable to consistently show a correlation between competition and school performance, creating ammunition for those who oppose school choice. A part of the problem is how the topic is researched. In their report, Susanna Loeb and Matthew Kasman explain that researchers focus on specific aspects of competition (i.e. school density in an area, the transfer rates of students) without factoring the perceptions of the school leaders who are responsible for changing curriculum and instruction. Loeb and Kasman analyzed data and surveys from Milwaukee Public Schools to determine what affect a principal’s perception of competition and how those school leaders respond. 

The results are surprising- the researchers reported that the number of schools in an area had little correlation with the perception of competition.  Conversely, the principals did report a greater sense of competition when their student transfer rates were higher and when they taught low and high achieving students. One potential reason for this is that schools specifically designed to serve these students such as charters succeeded in drawing students from other schools. Unfortunately, the researchers also found that principals were more likely to respond to competition by adjusting their outreach policies rather than making adjustments to their curriculum and instruction.

In order to develop curriculum and instruction changes on the school level, school choice advocates must shift some of their attention to improving already established schools so they attract more of their targeted students. Advocates must also create more avenues to help parents use clear and accessible data to determine what school is right for their child instead of allowing them to be convinced by advertisement efforts.

Susanna Loeb and Matthew Kasman, “Principals’ Perceptions of Competition for Students in Milwaukee School” (Association of Education Finance and Policy Journal, vol. 8, no. 1 2013)

In October, 2011, The Pew Charitable Trusts released a report called Closing Public Schools in Philadelphia: Lessons from Six Urban Districts, which looked at the process of school building closure in a number of urban districts to help inform the process of closure and repurposing of a potentially large number of buildings in Philadelphia. The process in Philadelphia was expected to take at least two years to complete.

And now a follow-up report has been released that looks at the reality of what happened in Philadelphia and a number of other cities after their “surplus” buildings were closed.  Shuttered Public Schools: The Struggle to Bring Old Buildings New Life looks at the realities of finding new uses for old school buildings in Atlanta, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Mo., Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Tulsa and Washington as well as Philadelphia (where, over two years later, as many as 37 buildings still remain to be closed before they can even reach the “repurposing” stage).

Among the key findings:

• School districts are not typically set up to become real estate brokers, resulting in slow and problematic transactions;
• Many buildings remain unsold due to multiple difficulties including neighborhood resistance to change of use, the economic downturn, and size and age of buildings;
• Unsold/unleased buildings remain a drain on districts’ finances due to security and maintenance costs until they are either repurposed or sold.

Some good news for the charter sector: of the buildings sold or leased in the cities under study, more than 40 percent went to charter schools. There is brief mention in the piece on recent developments in Cincinnati (the court challenge which resulted in the district’s deed restrictions against charter reuse of buildings being ruled unconstitutional) and Cleveland (the mayor’s transformation plan calls for stronger district-charter partnerships). It is to be hoped that these and other efforts across the state will result in an increase in charter school reuse of existing school buildings, which would appear from this report to be a win for all parties.