Ohio Representative Andrew Brenner has introduced legislation described on the General Assembly’s website as an effort to “revise school funding.” If there were an award for understatement of the year, that might win the prize.
Ohio Representative Andrew Brenner has introduced legislation described on the General Assembly’s website as an effort to “revise school funding.” If there were an award for understatement of the year, that might win the prize. The bill (House Bill 102) wouldn’t just “revise” school funding policies; it would revolutionize them—so much so that enacting it requires not only passage through the General Assembly but also approval via statewide referendum.
Given the sweeping changes he is proposing, Representative Brenner has prudently stated that his bill is intended as “a way to open up the discussion about how we traditionally fund schools in Ohio.” This discussion is sorely needed, but let’s also see what is in his bill. What ideas are promising and which deserve greater scrutiny?
The central ideas
The heart of HB 102 is to shift responsibility for school funding to the state level, a significant departure from the hybrid state-local funding system of today. To this end, Brenner would eliminate all district-level taxes and make up the difference with a 2 percent statewide property tax and a hike in the state sales tax. With funding centralized, HB 102 then sets across-the-board per-pupil amounts for all school districts and schools of choice. By scrapping local education funding, HB 102 is able to eliminate the complex formula adjustments that presently try to account for districts’ varying wealth.
The other important idea is that dollars would flow, on a per-student basis, to the institution that is actually educating the child. Two provisions in HB 102 make that clear: First, the state directly finances all districts and schools of choice based on their enrollment. This is an important change as more students choose to attend non-district schools. Under HB 102, no longer would Ohio use circuitous methods whereby choice students are first deemed district pupils and then money is deducted from that district. Instead, schools of attendance would begin to emerge as the targets of the funding system.[1] Second, the bill would scrap funding caps and guarantees. Because caps suppress state revenue when districts enroll more students and guarantees shield them from losses tied to enrollment declines, eliminating both would move Ohio further toward true per-pupil funding based on where students attend school.
An illustration of HB 102 in action
The table below illustrates, at a high level, how HB 102’s funding approach compares to current policy. It doesn’t show exactly how funding amounts would change, just the key differences in the policy frameworks. It displays data from Urbana City Schools, a small-town district west of Columbus, and Sycamore Community Schools, a property-rich suburb near Cincinnati. These districts were selected in part because they’re not currently subject to caps or guarantees, and hence receive state funds determined just by the formula; neither district has many students in choice programs either (less than 1 percent). These features help to simplify the illustration.
Table 1: Comparison of per-pupil funding under current policy and HB 102
[[{"fid":"119944","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"link_text":null,"type":"media","field_deltas":{"1":{"format":"default"}},"attributes":{"class":"media-element file-default","data-delta":"1"}}]]
Notes: This does not include state or local transportation and facilities funds, and it excludes federal and non-tax revenue. Urbana levies a 3.608 percent effective property tax; Sycamore 4.255 percent. For simplicity, this table bases calculations on the assumption that all resident students (in FY 18) attend district schools. Sources: Ohio Department of Education, Foundation Funding Reports (January #1, FY 18) and Ohio Department of Taxation, Tax Data Series (TY 16).
A few observations:
Issues to consider
The beauty of the funding system proposed in HB 102 is its simplicity, transparency, and predictability, as a well as a fundamental sort of statewide equity. Practically any elected leader could explain this type of system to their constituents. With fewer variables in the formula, schools should be able to better predict their revenues. Moreover, HB 102 better centers funding on where students actually attend school, regardless of whether that is a district, public charter, STEM, or chartered nonpublic school. The legislation also places all districts and schools on equal footing in terms of funding amounts, while also providing additional resources for students with greater needs. It would also put an end to the bewildering array of local levies—such as operating, incremental, emergency, and bond—that citizens are currently asked to vote on, and the campaigns in which districts and their supporters seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to win.
Still, for all of its elegance and simplicity, the plan would face an uphill battle to garner support—or to sustain it should the legislation pass.
Local autonomy: The present system preserves citizens’ right to voluntarily tax themselves at higher rates. This form of local autonomy ensures that citizens wanting to spend more money on education have a legal means to do so; and in the view of many, districts pay closer attention to constituents as they must win voter approval for taxes. If HB 102 is enacted, will Ohioans just petition the legislature for local taxing authority all over again? Will districts feel less pressure to meet local needs? Both are plausible. It’s also possible that residents—especially those living in high-tax districts—will simply resort to private contributions in the absence of local school taxes, something that occurred in Vermont when it shifted to a centralized funding system. Public school purists may cringe at this, though others who view education as a public-private good may not have the same concerns. Lastly, with the state government picking up the full funding tab, legislators may use power of the purse to impose their priorities and preferences, for better or worse, on all Ohio schools, perhaps leading to concerns about regulatory overreach.
Property inflation: A longstanding policy in Ohio is known as “tax reduction factors” whereby increases in property values are usually exempt from school taxes. In its proposal for a statewide property tax, HB 102 retains these reduction factors. As a result, the state won’t collect additional revenue when home values rise, though it will generate new revenue on construction. As the Legislative Service Commission writes, “A 5.0% increase in real property value will generally lead to a smaller increase (1.0%, for example) in real property tax revenue for the state.” With the property tax base more or less stuck at current real-estate values, revenues on this statewide tax could stagnate over the long run, and education funding may not keep pace with economic growth. If there is a move to a statewide property tax, legislators would need to find ways to ensure sufficient revenue growth for Ohio schools well into the future.
Property versus consumption taxes: HB 102 would increase the state sales tax from 5.75 to 7.35 percent to generate the revenue needed to fund this model. While many property owners would enjoy a substantial tax break—especially those in the highest-tax districts—they would also face higher sales taxes. Modelling tax effects is notoriously difficult, but policymakers would need to consider the potential economic consequences of shifting from property to consumption taxes.
Chartered nonpublic schools: Perhaps the most provocative aspect of HB 102 is the incorporation of chartered nonpublic (i.e., private) schools into the state’s funding system. They would receive the same per-pupil base and categorical amounts as their public-school counterparts. With full state funding for all private-school pupils, HB 102 would scrap the state’s voucher programs as well as today’s modest appropriations for auxiliary services and administrative costs for private schools. It also calls for state testing of all nonpublic school students. Although many developed nations fund their private schools (but don’t operate them), the wide-ranging proposal here would be remarkable for the United States where public support for private schools has generally been limited to targeted voucher programs. HB 102 sets forth a different, more pluralistic vision for Ohio’s school system: Taxpayer funds would support schools with varying missions, governance structures, and religious convictions. Strong objections, some on ideological grounds, would undoubtedly be registered, while critics would also likely argue that this amounts to a windfall for upper-middle-class families already paying tuition. And there’s no guarantee that all chartered nonpublic schools would participate, given the new exam requirements; some might move to “non-chartered” status, refusing state funds in return for autonomy. Nevertheless, this framework would better allow all families (who all pay taxes) the freedom to choose schools that meet their educational needs and correspond to their most deeply held beliefs.
* * *
Hats off to Representative Brenner for putting this proposal on the table. Many of the ideas behind HB 102 have merit, especially its emphasis on a simple, transparent funding system. Clear, equal base per-student funding for all districts and schools of choice would be another major advance. However, the proposal would face headwinds, especially from those residing in more prosperous districts where funding might decline. And perhaps there’s not enough discontent with the current funding system to storm the Bastille and upend the status quo in the way imagined in this bill. These realities likely favor incremental approaches—and Buckeye policymakers should certainly consider several workable provisions from HB 102 that would move the funding system in the right direction. They include dumping caps and guarantees, simplifying the funding formula, and financing choice programs directly from the state. Nonetheless, for the school-funding revolutionaries out there, vive la révolution!
[1] Once state funds reach school districts, districts may not allocate funds on a per-pupil basis to students’ schools of attendance.
Louisiana gets a ton of education-related attention, most of it focused on the Recovery School District and the proliferation of charter schools in New Orleans. While these reforms are certainly worth a close look, it’s the state’s quieter efforts on curriculum that may be truly changing the game for students and teachers.
My colleague Robert Pondiscio wrote an in-depth analysis of these initiatives that’s definitely worth a read. The upshot is that education leaders in Louisiana recognized the transformative power of high-quality curriculum and took action. They started by reviewing the curricula that schools used in order to determine rigor, coherency, and alignment to state standards. After identifying the best curricula, Louisiana created incentives for districts to select those materials rather than others. The state also evaluated professional development providers and recommended to schools only the providers who offered trainings specific to the best curricula rather than broad and general strategies.
So far, these efforts seem to be paying off: Louisiana students have shown improvements on state tests, the ACT, and AP exams. In addition, the state saw upticks on the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in fourth-grade math and reading. By most measures, Louisiana’s strategy appears to be working—and Ohio should consider following a similar path.
Right now, Ohio’s districts and schools are on their own when it comes to evaluating curriculua and materials. This isn’t just a waste of time and effort; it’s also a missed opportunity for collaboration. That’s why Ohio legislators should task the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), or another respected independent organization, to start conducting reviews of textbook and curricular materials. They might also want to consider allocating funds to help support these efforts.
The process could begin by asking districts to report what curricula they’re currently using or have used in the past. This list could serve as the basis for which textbooks and curricular programs the department evaluates first—that way, the materials that impact the highest number of Ohio students will be first under the microscope.
It is of the utmost importance that these reviews are rigorous and easy to understand. Ohio should ensure that its rubrics are evidence-based and similar to the frameworks used by independent evaluators across the country. The Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) evaluates curricular materials with various rubrics for certain grade levels and subjects, and evaluations result in one of three ratings: Tier 1 materials are labeled as exemplifying quality, Tier 2 materials are labeled as approaching quality, and Tier 3 materials are labeled as not representing quality. Although Ohio could craft its own rating labels and rubrics, the system must effectively differentiate curricula based on alignment to state standards, coherency, rigor, and overall quality.
It’s also important that the bulk of these reviews be conducted by the same people who are responsible for teaching curriculum—the state’s teachers. Again, LDOE offers an important example: Officials in Louisiana’s department selected teacher leaders from various geographical areas and grade levels based on demonstrated teaching and leadership ability. Not only would this leverage the expertise of teachers and ensure educator buy-in, it would also offer districts a way to empower their most effective teachers with leadership roles that don’t require them to leave the classroom.
Most importantly, though, the General Assembly must clearly assert from the start that the results of these reviews have no bearing on which curricula districts choose—local control remains paramount. ODE’s role is to support local districts in curricular decisions by providing independent evaluations of various textbooks and materials. It’s not to make those decisions for schools. Curriculum shouldn’t be a mandate, and local schools must maintain their right to select whichever instructional materials they believe will best serve their students.
That being said, the state has a clear role to play in encouraging adoption of first-rate curricula. Louisiana, for example, gave statewide contracts to the small number of curriculum vendors that achieved a top rating. This was not a mandate—districts were still free to choose whatever curricula they wanted. Those curricula that earned the highest marks from LDOE, however, were typically offered at discounted prices due to their contracts with the state. If Ohio pursued such an approach, this would offer high-quality resources to districts at a discount—without infringing on local control. The state could also follow Louisiana’s lead on teacher PD and recommend only the providers who can offer trainings geared toward the best-reviewed curricula.
Research shows that content-rich, high-quality curricula can improve student outcomes in a cost-effective way. By taking the steps outlined here, Ohio could impact thousands of students in a positive way—all for a fraction of the cost of other school improvement strategies. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Ohio’s State Board of Education recently voted in favor of recommending that the legislature extend softer graduation requirements to the classes of 2019 and 2020. Such a move would be seriously misguided, since these expectations don’t require students to demonstrate academic mastery or readiness for college or career. Instead, the board suggests that students receive diplomas when they complete various non-academic options, including meeting attendance requirements or accruing a certain number of volunteer or internship hours.
An argument could certainly be made that the state should stick with the graduation requirements currently enshrined in law, which permit students to graduate if they have: achieved a passing cumulative score on seven end-of-course exams, achieved a “remediation-free” ACT or SAT score, or completed career and technical education requirements that include earning an industry recognized credential. After all, more than three-fourths of students in the class of 2018 are on track to graduate, even with these rigorous expectations in place.
However, if the General Assembly decides to make a change, they should consider other options aside from the proposal from the state board. One possibility is the model recently adopted by Indiana, beginning with its class of 2023. In order to graduate, Indiana students will need to 1) meet curricular requirements, 2) demonstrate employability skills, and 3) demonstrate their postsecondary readiness.
The curricular requirement is both simple and straightforward— students must take certain courses and earn a certain number of credits in order to graduate. This is similar to Ohio’s current coursework requirements. The employability and postsecondary readiness measures, on the other hand, allow for several different pathways that students may choose. Let’s take a closer look at each.
Employability skills
Students must demonstrate their employability skills by selecting and completing one of three pathways. The first is a project-based learning experience. Indiana’s State Board describes this pathway as a project “framed by a meaningful problem to solve or a question to answer.” Students can fulfill this requirement in a variety of ways, including a course capstone project, a research project, or the AP Capstone Assessment. The second is a service-learning experience, which includes participating in a “meaningful volunteer or civic engagement experience” or participating in a co-curricular or extracurricular activity or sport for at least one academic year. The final pathway is a work-based learning experience, and may include the completion of an internship or employment outside of school.
Postsecondary readiness
This portion is aimed at ensuring students are ready for what comes after high school—and it recognizes that not all students will choose to go to college. Students can demonstrate their readiness by completing one of the following pathways: earning an honors diploma; meeting the college-ready benchmark scores on the ACT or SAT; earning a score on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery that would qualify the student for placement into one of the branches of the US military; earning a state- and industry-recognized credential or certificate; completing a state-, federal-, or industry-recognized apprenticeship; earning a C average or higher in at least six high school credits in a career sequence; or earning a C average or higher in at least three AP, IB, dual credit, Cambridge International, or CLEP courses. Indiana also permits districts to create local pathways for this requirement, so long as the pathway earns the approval of the state board.
Indiana’s model has its critics. Still, it is far superior to the plan recommended by the Ohio State Board in two key ways. First, Indiana’s pathways include nonacademic measures in addition to academic measures, not in place of them. The graduation alternatives proposed by the state board allow Ohio students to graduate without evidence that they are academically prepared for college or career. Indiana’s model, on the other hand, requires students to not only demonstrate skills important for the workplace but also success on a readiness measure that opens door to postsecondary opportunities (e.g. an apprenticeship).
Which brings us to the second reason: Indiana’s model addresses concerns about the one-size-fits-all nature of Ohio’s system. Critics of Ohio’s current graduation pathways have claimed that the system too heavily emphasizes tests and doesn’t allow students to demonstrate their learning in other ways. Adopting Indiana’s model would address these concerns without sacrificing the long-term prospects of graduating seniors by combining academic and non-academic requirements.
Ohio lawmakers may very well determine that maintaining the Buckeye State’s robust graduation requirements is the right course, a decision that we would applaud. But if they conclude that a change is warranted instead, the model adopted by Indiana is a better alternative to the academic-lite proposal being recommended by the state board.
As teacher evaluation systems evolve around the nation—decreasing the importance of student growth scores in favor of more reliance on classroom observations—how best to support principals in observing and giving feedback on teacher performance will gain importance. While research may play a part in determining best practices going forward, a recent report from the Institute of Education Sciences is more of a cautionary tale than an exemplar.
The study involved 339 New Mexico principals who were scheduled to observe their teachers for the first of multiple times in the early part of the 2015-2016 school year. According to the state’s evaluation framework, principals are required to score teachers on a 22-item rubric after each observation and to hold a feedback conference within ten days of each observation. This was the first year of full implementation of the state’s new evaluation system, which ultimately assigned ratings to every teacher in the state based on classroom observations, student growth data, surveys, and other factors. This study explored whether providing a detailed checklist to principals could improve the quality of the post-observation conferences.
To carry out the experiment, the researchers randomly assigned half of the principals to a control group, while those in the treatment group were given specific, step-by-step information—including a 24-item checklist and a testimonial video from a principal in another state attesting to the efficacy of the checklist. Teachers in the treatment group received the same documents and video as their principals, along with the knowledge that the checklist might be used in their feedback conferences. Adapted from a guide developed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teachers, the checklist aimed to increase the quality and efficacy of feedback conferences, to positively influence teacher professional development, and to raise student achievement. An important effort if successful.
Unfortunately, the experimental design ran into problems. While 77 percent of principals in the treatment group reported viewing the checklist, only 58 percent said they actually used it with one or more teachers. Additionally, 29 percent of control group principals also reported that they had seen the checklist, and 10 percent of them reported using it with one or more teachers, despite an admonition to treatment group participants not to share the checklist. The low uptake rate, lack of consistent use, and blurring of the line between treatment and control groups limits our ability to draw clear conclusions about the effectiveness of these checklists. (This has been a challenge with other federal studies, too.)
Nevertheless, teachers in the treatment group reported that principals using the checklist were less dominant during the feedback conference. This is to be expected as the step-by-step checklist was geared toward principals giving teachers prompts for their response after each piece of feedback was presented. Principals, however, reported no significant impact of the checklist on any measure of conference quality. Both principals and teachers who used the checklist reported that it was useful but also reported concerns that it could lead to formulaic conferences. While teachers who received the checklist were more likely to report following their principals’ professional development recommendations than were teachers in the control group, there was no clear impact on teachers’ subsequent classroom observation rating scores during the school year. The researchers posited that the short timeline for the study meant that PD suggestions were not acted upon within the year. Teachers may use the feedback to improve their practice, but likely not until the summer, with effects potentially visible in the following school year. Finally, the feedback conference checklist had no clear impact on student achievement outcomes—as measured by state math and English language arts exams—or on school report card grades released after the close of the school year. Once again, the short timeline of the study design is to blame.
Productive conversations between teachers and principals about instructional effectiveness is definitely to be encouraged and will likely become more important in states whose evaluation frameworks prioritize observation-based evaluation. Can a step-by-step checklist help facilitate those conversations and improvements? It seems the jury is still out.
SOURCE: Kata Mihaly, et al, “Impact of a checklist on principal-teacher feedback conferences following classroom observations,” Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (January 2018).
Campaign season in Ohio is in full swing. With a gubernatorial election this year, there’s been ample media coverage related to who’s entering the race, who’s withdrawing, who’s getting endorsed by whom, and who has the most cash. What’s less clear is where each candidate stands on education. To some extent, one can assume candidate views based on past priorities (if they hold or have held office) or on party affiliation. But partisanship does not always predict policy positions, and education is odd that way—you can find pro-school choice Democrats in some communities and anti-school choice Republicans in others, for example.
It’s not unusual for candidates at this stage in the game (pre-primary) to keep their talking points broad and their websites vague. Even so, it’s a bit disappointing that so many of Ohio’s current gubernatorial candidates are so light on education details. Only three candidates (of eight total) noted specific education positions on their websites in a way that was easy for voters to find (see the table below). And while many have provided quotes on education to the media, much of it is overtly partisan (see “quotes” below). Voters shouldn’t have to comb all corners of the web to ascertain where a candidate stands on key education areas or read piecemeal quotes that don’t really cover the fundamentals of education policy.
Ohio gubernatorial candidate (lieutenant governor) | Policy positions on education listed on website | Other mentions of education on website | Quotes |
Richard Cordray (Betty Sutton) | None | None | Has spoken against public funding to ECOT |
Mike DeWine (Jon Husted) | None | A lone reference in the “about” section about knowing that “every parent wants their kids to have an opportunity for a solid education” | Believes that drug prevention education should be taught in every school and is a proponent of financial literacy programming in high schools |
Dennis Kucinich (Tara Samples) | Kucinich includes “education and the arts” among eight position areas and dedicates a paragraph to K-12 focused primarily on funding. | Schools mentioned in need for “peaceful communities” | Said he would ban political contributions from charter operators and that he believes all charter boards should be elected |
Bill O’Neill (Chantelle Lewis) | None | None | Suggested a “cabinet-level czar” for education |
Connie Pillich (Scott Schertzer) | Pillich includes education among eight policy areas and describes an “education stimulus” package that touches on funding, STEM, Pre-K, and affordable college. | In policy section | Has proposed free college tuition and Pre-K; argued that “94 percent” of charters are failing to perform as well as or better than traditional public schools |
Joe Schiavoni (Stephanie Dodd) | Three of Schiavoni’s nineteen issue areas listed cover education: “great schools,” career tech education, and college affordability. | In policy sections and also named in “about us” under Schiavoni as well as Dodd | Has been highly vocal about ECOT and outspoken about dramatic governance reforms in Youngstown |
Mary Taylor (Nathan Estruth) | None | None | Said charter schools “need to be held more accountable,” students need more skills training, and teachers need to be held accountable “in a realistic way” |
Ideally, all candidates should be able to sketch out their views on key education areas in a way that voters can easily see. Here’s a breakdown of applicable questions that any prospective governor should answer; perhaps the Columbus Dispatch or another major newspaper could ask them to do so.
Accountability
1.) Would you keep Ohio’s school and district report cards? Make any changes to them?
2.) Given that one in three college freshmen in Ohio need remedial coursework, how do you propose to strengthen readiness for college in the K-12 system? For young people entering the workforce directly after high school, what steps can we take to prepare them for their careers?
School funding
3.) Is the funding of Ohio’s schools constitutional? If not, how would you change the system?
4.) Should the state play a greater role in school funding, or do you see local property taxes as an appropriate source of education revenue?
5.) What education programs would you prioritize to fund through your budget? How would you ensure that funds are well spent?
6.) How should charter schools and choice programs be funded?
Choice
7.) Do you hope to see more or fewer charter schools in Ohio by the end of your tenure? How would you promote quality in the charter sector?
8.) What should determine eligibility for private school scholarships—the quality of a student’s zoned school, income, disability, something else?
9.) What can state policymakers do to support families as they search for quality school options? Would you push urban districts and charter schools to set up common enrollment systems?
Governance and regulation
10.) If a school or district is underperforming, what should be done to help it improve? Are there instances where drastic measures outside of the governance norms of a district are necessary? What do you think of Ohio’s academic distress commission model?
11.) Who do you think should be in charge of education decision making at a state level—the Governor, State Board of Education, the legislature?
12.) How do you view state regulations on schools? Specifically, how do you view Ohio’s teacher evaluation, compensation, and licensure regulations?
Personally, I’d also throw these in for good measure:
13.) What qualifications would you seek for appointees to the State Board of Education?
14.) What types of schools did you go to? What about your children?
This is more useful to know, in my opinion, than whether the candidate has an aunt or sister-in-law who’s a teacher. For example, a candidate who says she supports public education but sends her children to private school might raise a red flag for me if she also opposes providing that same choice to less fortunate families.
15.) What do you think are the biggest problems Ohio faces in K-12 education?
Watch out for common scapegoats, be they “for-profit” charter schools or teachers’ unions. Does the candidate cite specific data grounded in fact? Do they speak with aspiration, with the belief that these problems can be solved, and provide concrete policy solutions?
16.) What ideas are missing in Ohio’s current education policy environment? Can you discuss which states or localities are doing that thing well?
* * *
While everyone will likely have their own set of education questions for gubernatorial candidates, answers to these queries would give voters incredibly valuable information as they decide who will be Ohio’s next chief executive. Education is simply too important to leave answers to chance.
Malcolm X once said, “Education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it today.”
Wise words. Education has long been the source of opportunity, a passport if you will, for Americans to pursue a better life. But education isn’t a passive activity; it’s earned through hard work, preparation, attainment.
Starting in 2009, Ohio began to move away from a relatively low benchmark of competency—the Ohio Graduation Tests[1] (OGT)—and toward the more rigorous expectations of high school end-of-course exams as a precondition for obtaining a diploma.[2] The impetus was that too few students in Ohio were leaving high school with the skills necessary either to enroll in postsecondary education without costly remediation or to enter the workforce. The new system, deemed the “College and Work Ready Assessment System,” was designed to require more work on the part of students to be successful and to act as an effective replacement of the OGTs and their low expectations.
Just as the requirements were finally set to be enforced, however, concerns that too few students would meet the higher bar resulted in development of a new and much less demanding graduation option for the class of 2018. Students would be able to receive a diploma for completing two of nine alternative measures, some of which had nothing to do with academic attainment. We’ve roundly criticized this smorgasbord option as a route to leaving Ohio again hungry for graduates who possess fundamental skills in core subjects like math, English, history, and science.
At first, the easy path applied only to the class of 2018. Recently, however, the State Board of Education voted to recommend to the legislature that the “temporary” framework be extended to the classes of 2019 and 2020. That is seriously and tragically unwise. Making it easy to graduate was a bad idea last year, and it’s even worse as it moves from a one year exception to a pattern and practice.
Here are five better approaches that deserve serious consideration if Ohio hopes to deliver on the promise of preparing young people for the world they’ll face tomorrow. Underlying all five are these key precepts: all students can learn and reach Ohio’s graduation requirements; receiving a great education remains the surest path toward a better life; work and college ask more of students than ever before; and incentives inform behavior, such that policy solutions should be structured in a manner to encourage all students to reach their potential.
1. Hold the line
Ohio’s fundamental graduation problem hasn’t changed. Too few students are leaving high school ready for either college or work. If higher expectations were important before, it’s imperative that we maintain them going forward. It’s true that those seeking an easier path to graduation are worried that the demanding version will create a graduation crisis. Yet early data from the Ohio Department of Education offer little support for their concern. The data suggest that 77 percent of the class of 2018 are highly likely to meet the graduation requirements based upon either EOC exams or remediation-free ACT/SAT scores. This doesn’t include students who will complete the industry-credential pathway or those with disabilities who will receive a diploma without passing state testing requirements. While not an apples-to-apples comparison, these numbers suggest that even with higher expectations, Ohio is fairly close to matching its current 83 percent high school graduation rate.
2. Encourage students who need it to take a fifth year
Even though all students can learn, some undoubtedly need more time to master certain concepts. In an era when we talk about the merits of academic mastery, making it clear to young people that it’s okay to take an additional year to acquire the skills they’ll need after high school could pay off for them as well as for the state in the long run. While traditional high schools are likely to be the first choice, Ohio could also explore creating educational centers to focus on shoring up academic deficiencies or assisting students interested in acquiring industry credentials. This approach complements option 1 and reinforces the principle that all students—given time and the proper support—can reach Ohio’s graduation requirements. The drawback is that widespread use of an extra year, if it came to that, would carry a price tag. Yet that cost doesn’t begin to match the long term cost of students dropping out of college and struggling in the workplace.
3. Phase in the end-of-course exam requirements
Speaking of time, another option would be to give schools and students more time to adjust to higher expectations. The state board of education has specified that students must achieve eighteen cumulative points on the seven required EOC exams.[3] There’s nothing magical about the number eighteen, though. The state board could phase it in, maybe starting with fourteen or fifteen and adding a point every year or two. This would offer quick relief and would also deal with the issue transparently. Transparency is critical—and so is framing. Discussions around easing the path for the class of 2018 purported to suggest that easier was also better, fairer, and more holistic. Scarcely mentioned by policy makers was the fact that any student receiving a diploma under the alternative measure couldn’t objectively demonstrate competency in core academic skills. If Ohio decides to lower its academic demands, then those in power need to own that decision and speak the truth about it.
4. Dual diploma
A less conventional option is to create a dual diploma arrangement. While we’d always prefer to keep one rigorous diploma with universally high expectations, the exception for the class of 2018 and the proposal to expand it to future years suggests that the political will of the governor, legislature, and state board may not make that possible. In that case, a dual diploma presents a creative option. The standard version would require students to complete state-mandated courses[4] and any other requirements adopted by a local school board. Each district might tailor this diploma to meet the needs of its community. A second diploma option, a “college- and career-ready” diploma, would be structured along the lines of Ohio’s graduation requirements before they were eased for the class of ‘18. Keeping this higher bar in place would preserve an incentive for both schools and students to achieve at the higher level needed for success in college and career.[5] But it would also ensure that young people who meet basic standards, as determined by their local schools, receive a credential when they exit high school. Schools and districts would need to report on the number of students reaching the state’s higher-level diploma. Students should also be encouraged to strive for the enhanced credential with a series of potential incentives that could range from official recognition, a remediation-free certificate for future post-secondary coursework, loan forgiveness opportunities, or even a dedicated scholarship fund.
5. Combination of academic and non-academic indicators
Finally, Ohio could consider something akin to the graduation pathway that Indiana is implementing for its class of 2023. While deserving of a more detailed analysis (coming soon in a future Ohio Gadfly), the Hoosier State will require all students to 1) meet curricular requirements; 2) learn and demonstrate employability skills; AND 3) complete some type of postsecondary competency like achieving certain test scores or earning recognized credentials. This approach differs from Ohio’s alternative pathway for the class of 2018 in its requirement for employability skills to be demonstrated in addition to, rather than in place of, academic competency. In addition, Indiana did a fine job in identifying achievements under its competency requirement that could translate quickly into successful entry into the workforce (CTE Concentrator, recognized apprenticeship), the military (ASVAB passage), or postsecondary education (ACT/SAT scores). The upside of this proposal is that it doesn’t eliminate the requirement of students to demonstrate competencies that lead to success after high school but instead requires a blend of academic and non-academic options.
* * *
Whatever option Ohio pursues, we need to be true to our principles. All students can learn, incentives matter, life demands more than ever, and education remains the surest path to prosperity. Most importantly, we must remember that the passport an education provides needs to be more than a piece of paper. It’s a mark of preparation, not a rite of passage. If we forget that, any value we place on education—and by extension a diploma—will disappear.
[1] Administered in the tenth grade, OGTs were regularly panned for measuring eighth-grade-level skills.
[2] In addition to performance on EOC exams, students can also receive a diploma for a remediation-free ACT/SAT score or an industry credential with passing marks on a workforce readiness assessment.
[3] Students receive anywhere from a 1 to a 5 on EOC exams.
[4] Twenty credits are currently required under state law.
[5] While not discussed here, Ohio does offer an honors diploma for students who achieve far beyond the college- and career-ready level. This proposal would not alter that framework.
