The Education Gadfly Weekly

Congratulations to KIPP: Central Ohio Executive Director Hannah Powell (who was the school leader for the past several years) and the entire staff at KIPP: Journey Academy for the school’s EPIC Silver Gain Award from New Leaders for New Schools.

The EPIC (Effective Practice Incentive Community) award recognizes schools that make substantial gains in student academic growth. In partnership with Mathematica Policy Research, NLNS gathers student test data and analyzes them.  Schools with the highest gains are selected as winners. To be eligible for an EPIC award, schools must have student populations of at least 30 percent eligible free and reduced-price lunch (over 90 percent of KIPP Journey students are considered economically disadvantaged) , submit three years of state test score data for all students, and be willing to share their effective practices with NLNS EPIC partners. As part of the award, KIPP: Journey Academy will receive approximately $50,000 to be distributed among its staff.

Of the 179 charter schools from 24 states and the District of Columbia that participated, only 14 winners were selected, and KIPP: Journey Academy was the only school in Ohio - and the only KIPP school nationally- to receive an award.

On behalf of the school, Ms. Powell said, “We are thrilled and honored that KIPP: Journey received this award. This award recognizes the dedication of our teachers and staff as they help our students climb the mountain to and through college.”

As the sponsor (aka “authorizer”) of KIPP: Journey Academy, we extend our warmest congratulations to the leadership, staff and students. We know that behind this award is three years of hard work by the staff, board, and students; a steadfast commitment to markedly improving student academic performance; and the unwavering believe that any child that comes through the doors can and will go to college.

The No Child Left Behind Act requires public schools that have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two consecutive years to offer children of low-income families the opportunity to receive supplemental educational services (SES). SES comes primarily in the form of tutoring offered outside of regular schools hours and is often provided by private entities. Schools failing to meet AYP requirements are required to set aside 20 percent of their Title I funding to pay for SES and to measure the effectiveness of tutoring on student achievement. How much impact does SES have on student achievement though? A recent report by the Center for American Progress sets out to answer this question as well as provide policy recommendations that aim to improve the SES program.  

The report found that many states and school districts are extremely deficient in the evaluation and recording of SES providers and their results. A combination of self-reporting and unreliable data collection methods such as parent surveys has resulted in lack-luster evidence on the effectiveness of tutoring programs.  In addition to the lack of sufficient data among states and districts, the number of tutoring hours that students receive is critical in the impact on student achievement. Research has proven the “magic” number to be 40 hours. Students receiving less than 40 hours of tutoring do not demonstrate any statistically significant gains in reading and math.  The report also states that another problem with SES is that tutors do not have to have any specific training or meet certain requirements, therefore making it very difficult to have any consistency in the quality of tutors.

In light of an impending reauthorization of NCLB this report provides several policy recommendations that aim to make SES more effective. Among these recommendations are that students must receive more hours of tutoring, states and district must do a better job of monitoring the services provided and the costs associated with them, as well as increase coordination among tutors, parents, and teachers.

Many states, including Ohio have already begun to make changes to the SES program. As part of its recent waiver application for NCLB Ohio would disband the current tutoring program, and schools could use federal money to extend the school day or school year. If Ohio’s waiver application is accepted by the Department of Education this would be a welcome change in a tutoring program that currently has little accountability and results.

In Ohio’s recent waiver application to the U.S. Department of Education for relief from the most onerous portions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the Buckeye State proposes the creation of a revamped and significantly improved reporting system for school and district performance.

Ohio’s current rating system uses vanilla and confusing terms for rating schools and districts like “Excellent with Distinction,” “Continuous Improvement,” and “Academic Emergency.” Worse, the state’s rating system provides inflated grades for performance. For example, in classic Lake Wobegon fashion, 57 percent of Ohio’s school districts were rated as “Excellent with Distinction” or “Excellent” (the best possible ratings) in 2011. Conversely, not one of the state’s 609 rated school districts was rated “Academic Emergency” (the lowest possible rating).  

Ohio’s new system would incorporate an A-F letter grade system, and grades would be based on a basket of performance metrics ranging from number of academic standards met or surpassed to value-added gains to progress in closing achievement and graduation gaps. Under the proposed new system – which has to be approved by the U.S. Department of Education and put into Ohio law – districts and schools will be provided with an overall grade and separate grades in the categories of: 1) student performance, 2) school performance, 3) gap closing and 4) student progress (see details here).

The proposed system would not only be easier for parents, citizens, and others to understand because it will use the old education staples of A-F ratings, but the grades promise to be better gauges of actual school and district performance. State Superintendent Stan Heffner has shared that “Parents won’t see as many As” on school report cards,” which means parents, taxpayers, and others will be given a more honest appraisal of actual district and school performance. This would undeniably be a step forward for Ohio, its children, and its schools in that the first step to improvement is acknowledging you’ve got a problem or weaknesses to improve upon.

Using data provided earlier this week by the Ohio Department of Education we have summarized how school districts and schools across the state would be rated using the current system and using the proposed new system. It should be noted that the data simulations were created using actual performance data from 2011 and do not project into 2012. These are not a prediction of future scores, but rather a way to compare recent results under the two different systems. What’s clear from the charts below is that Ohio would see a more balanced, and we think more honest, rating system under the proposed changes.

For example, under the new system only three percent of Ohio’s school districts would receive an A grade, which is a stark contrast to the nearly 60 percent of school districts in Ohio that received a top rating of Excellent or Excellent with Distinction in 2011. Conversely, whereas no school districts fell into Academic Emergency in 2011, under the new system two districts would receive an F.   

Graphs 1 and 2 below demonstrate results under the current system and how things would potentially change under the proposed A-F system.

Graph 1: Academic Ratings for Ohio’s School Districts Under Current System
(Using 2010-11 Performance Data)

Graph 2: Academic Ratings for Ohio’s School Districts Under Proposed System
(Using 2010-11 Achievement Data)

 

The same kind of shift in performance rating can be seen among individual school buildings across the state (there are about 3,400 public district and charter schools in Ohio that receive academic ratings). Graph 3 shows the percentage of schools by each current academic designation. Again, the Excellent and Excellent Distinction range is inflated. However, graph 4 shows that the distribution changes significantly under the proposed system. Under the new system there would be as many schools rated F as there are rated A.

Graph 3: Academic Ratings for Ohio’s Public Schools Under Current System
(Using 2010-11 Achievement Data)
 

Graph 4: Academic Ratings for Ohio’s Public Schools Under Proposed System
(Using 2010-11 Achievement Data)

 

Ohio’s planned move away from its current rating system is an improvement, and a more honest and accurate description of how Buckeye schools and districts are actually performing. The decline in the number of Excellent and Excellent with Distinction schools and school districts is already coming as a shock to many district officials, school principals, teachers, parents, and students. There have been several articles describing the coming changes and what they mean for districts across the state. The Columbus Dispatch recently quoted the superintendent of Bexley City Schools, a suburb of Columbus, as saying, “I don’t know how a high-performing district like ours and many others gets a B?” “It might be a way of communicating in the simplest way but you miss a whole lot.” Bexley, currently rated Excellent with Distinction, would fall to a B under the new system.  

Superintendents of currently high-performing districts in Montgomery County will also see a decline in their academic rating under the new system. Of the 28 districts in Montgomery that received a rating of Excellent with Distinction or Excellent on the last report card, only three (Oakwood, Miami East, and Mason) would receive an A with the new system. We expected to see district leaders, teachers, and parents to be surprised at how their districts and schools fare under the new system. As Marc Schare, a member of the Worthington Board of Education stated, “The notion that so many school districts in Ohio could be rated excellent or effective is simply not possible given the remediation rates from kids going on to Ohio colleges.” There will surely be much more backlash in the coming months, but moving forward with this improved and honest rating system is the right thing to do for our kids and their future. The Ohio Department of Education deserves kudos for seeking to use the NCLB waiver process to elevate school expectations in Ohio. Hopefully the USDOE will approve the waivers quickly and without modifications, while Ohio’s General Assembly passes the legislation necessary for the state to move forward.

Fordham has worked in Dayton – as a funder, charter-school authorizer, and charter-school advocate – to push for the creation and growth of high quality charter schools since 1998. Over the last decade one of the highest performing charter school clusters in the city has been the Richard Allen (RA) Schools (RA has three schools in Dayton that serve about 800 children). Over the years I’ve spent time with the leaders of Richard Allen, visited their schools, and even helped judge their annual debate competition. In short, I have always been impressed by both the educators and the students I’ve met and worked with from the RA schools and believe the schools delivered quality education to students.

It is because of these personal connections to the schools over the years that I found the recent “Special Audit of the Richard Allen Academy Schools” such painful and disturbing reading. The Special Audit provided a litany of “missing money, missing records and self-dealing” that has led to $929,850 in findings for recovery. The audit describes a situation where public dollars were used without any basic accountability or transparency. It reads as if the schools’ leadership considered the schools a private operation free of any responsibility for how the state dollars were spent. There also seemed little understanding as to whom the public resources were meant to support.

For example, the audit details how the schools contracted with the Montgomery County Department of Jobs and Family Services to provide summer and after-school readiness enrichment services to needy Dayton families. The RA administration, despite receiving public dollars for the express purpose of providing programs, charged participating families a weekly fee – to be paid in cash – for attending the after school program. According to the audit, “the fees were paid in cash. We could not identify any program fees recorded or deposited by the Schools.”

In response to the audit, Richard Allen officials issued a statement to the Dayton Daily News that read:

The language chosen for use in the audit report attempts to create the perception that there was intent to run afoul of the laws of this state by the parties referenced therein. What the auditors were tasked with ascertaining was whether the funds expended by the schools were for a proper public purpose. As stewards of public funds, we would expect no less. However, we are dismayed by the arbitrary and capricious nature in which the auditors determined what documentation they would and would not give credence to.

Such defiant language might have more credibility if the state auditor were someone other than Dave Yost. Yost is a Republican who supports charter schools and school choice generally. He also is a former prosecutor who knows how to follow the facts. He made his name in politics for his vigorous prosecution of political corruption. His stated mission as auditor is “to protect Ohioans’ tax dollars while aggressively fighting fraud, waste and misuse in public spending.”

The problems facing the leadership of the Richard Allen family of schools are likely just beginning as the auditor has referred many of the findings to the Ohio Ethics Commission, the Ohio Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, state retirement agencies, and the Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services. If the Ohio Ethics Commission, for example, finds that a violation has occurred, its findings are turned over to the appropriate prosecuting authority for criminal prosecution.

The Richard Allen Academy Schools Audit highlights, yet again, the need for Ohio statute to clarify the roles and duties of school governing boards, school operators, and school sponsors (aka authorizers). Some of the problems highlighted in the audit are a result of state law that allows the blurring of responsibilities and accountabilities across the different authorities responsible for charter performance. The auditor reported:

As a result of these relationships, the Schools, their management company, and sponsor are generally operated by the same individual, the organizations are closely related, financial operations have been commingled, and management lines have been blurred. The lack of separation between the Schools, their management company and their sponsoring organization increases the risk of financial mismanagement, inappropriate relationships and statutory ethics violations.

This blurring of responsibilities was the topic of a February 4 Columbus Dispatch editorial that observed:

The greatest weakness in Ohio’s charter-school system is a lack of clear boundaries between the principal players in a charter school

• The governing board, which creates the school and is responsible for it;
• The sponsor, which is authorized by the state to oversee a school and hold the governing board accountable for performance;
•  In some cases, an operating company, nonprofit or for-profit, that is paid by the governing board to run the school;
•  And the Ohio Department of Education, which oversees it all.

Legislation to address these issues has been introduced almost every year since 2005, and the most recent effort was included in the Senate’s version of the recent biennial budget. Each time the legislation is presented it gets killed by self-interested groups that benefit from the current confusion.

The situation with the Richard Allen Schools is surely a sad one for the hundreds of children and their families who attend the schools, for the dozens of teachers in the buildings who are working hard every day to provide first-rate instruction to their students, and for Dayton – which still has too few high-performing elementary school options for its children. Yet, maybe some good can come out of this if the General Assembly finally creates a system of reasonable checks and balances for Ohio’s charter schools.

Congratulations to KIPP: Central Ohio Executive Director Hannah Powell (who was the school leader for the past several years) and the entire staff at KIPP: Journey Academy for the school’s EPIC Silver Gain Award from New Leaders for New Schools.

The EPIC (Effective Practice Incentive Community) award recognizes schools that make substantial gains in student academic growth. In partnership with Mathematica Policy Research, NLNS gathers student test data and analyzes them.  Schools with the highest gains are selected as winners. To be eligible for an EPIC award, schools must have student populations of at least 30 percent eligible free and reduced-price lunch (over 90 percent of KIPP Journey students are considered economically disadvantaged) , submit three years of state test score data for all students, and be willing to share their effective practices with NLNS EPIC partners. As part of the award, KIPP: Journey Academy will receive approximately $50,000 to be distributed among its staff.

Of the 179 charter schools from 24 states and the District of Columbia that participated, only 14 winners were selected, and KIPP: Journey Academy was the only school in Ohio - and the only KIPP school nationally- to receive an award.

On behalf of the school, Ms. Powell said, “We are thrilled and honored that KIPP: Journey received this award. This award recognizes the dedication of our teachers and staff as they help our students climb the mountain to and through college.”

As the sponsor (aka “authorizer”) of KIPP: Journey Academy, we extend our warmest congratulations to the leadership, staff and students. We know that behind this award is three years of hard work by the staff, board, and students; a steadfast commitment to markedly improving student academic performance; and the unwavering believe that any child that comes through the doors can and will go to college.

The No Child Left Behind Act requires public schools that have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two consecutive years to offer children of low-income families the opportunity to receive supplemental educational services (SES). SES comes primarily in the form of tutoring offered outside of regular schools hours and is often provided by private entities. Schools failing to meet AYP requirements are required to set aside 20 percent of their Title I funding to pay for SES and to measure the effectiveness of tutoring on student achievement. How much impact does SES have on student achievement though? A recent report by the Center for American Progress sets out to answer this question as well as provide policy recommendations that aim to improve the SES program.  

The report found that many states and school districts are extremely deficient in the evaluation and recording of SES providers and their results. A combination of self-reporting and unreliable data collection methods such as parent surveys has resulted in lack-luster evidence on the effectiveness of tutoring programs.  In addition to the lack of sufficient data among states and districts, the number of tutoring hours that students receive is critical in the impact on student achievement. Research has proven the “magic” number to be 40 hours. Students receiving less than 40 hours of tutoring do not demonstrate any statistically significant gains in reading and math.  The report also states that another problem with SES is that tutors do not have to have any specific training or meet certain requirements, therefore making it very difficult to have any consistency in the quality of tutors.

In light of an impending reauthorization of NCLB this report provides several policy recommendations that aim to make SES more effective. Among these recommendations are that students must receive more hours of tutoring, states and district must do a better job of monitoring the services provided and the costs associated with them, as well as increase coordination among tutors, parents, and teachers.

Many states, including Ohio have already begun to make changes to the SES program. As part of its recent waiver application for NCLB Ohio would disband the current tutoring program, and schools could use federal money to extend the school day or school year. If Ohio’s waiver application is accepted by the Department of Education this would be a welcome change in a tutoring program that currently has little accountability and results.