Ohio education policy has seen its fair share of controversy in recent years, but there are two policies in particular that have dominated news cycles: graduation requirements and academic distress commissions (ADCs).
Ohio education policy has seen its fair share of controversy in recent years, but there are two policies in particular that have dominated news cycles: graduation requirements and academic distress commissions (ADCs).
Here at Fordham, we’ve written a considerable amount on both topics. And while it’s easy to get lost in the weeds, particularly as new proposals crop up and are debated, it’s important to take a step back every now and then and look at the big picture.
Unfortunately, taking a step back reveals that graduation requirements and ADCs have become the newest entries on a long list of examples of Ohio policymakers sidestepping accountability. Back in 2017, I wrote about several policies that lawmakers eagerly passed and then quickly backed away from when political pressure and consequences surfaced. These included retention requirements for the Third Grade Reading Guarantee, “safe harbor” from consequences associated with state report card ratings, and, yes, graduation requirements.
Fast forward to 2019, and not much has changed. The State Board of Education is still slow-walking the promotion score on the Third Grade Reading Guarantee, and state report cards are still under attack. But the situation with graduation requirements has actually gotten worse. That’s because what was just a proposal back in 2017—weak graduation alternatives recommended by the state board that would allow students to graduate based on non-academic measures like attendance and community service—has been temporarily enshrined in state law.
Last year, the class of 2018 received diplomas based on these softened requirements. The classes of 2019 and 2020 have the same opportunity. When all is said and done, Ohio will have tens of thousands of students who graduated under requirements that are the antithesis of the high standards called for in the bipartisan reform bill passed back in 2009 that scrapped the low-level Ohio Graduation Tests and replaced them with a tougher set of state exams that also included a rigorous career-technical pathway. In just ten short years, policymakers have undone everything they set out to do with graduation requirements.
Of course, boomeranging policy is the least of our concerns. What matters is how policy affects students, and things don’t look good on that front. Weak graduation requirements like the ones currently in law lead to meaningless diplomas. And when diplomas are meaningless, students pay the price: remedial college classes that cost money, waste time, and decrease the chances of completion, a constant struggle to keep up with better-prepared peers, and difficulty finding and keeping a well-paying job are just a few of the consequences that negatively impact the same outcomes a high school diploma is supposed to make possible.
Even worse, these consequences hit poor and minority students the hardest. Graduation data from the class of 2018 suggest that Ohio’s low-income students likely used the weaker graduation options more frequently than their peers. There’s also a correlation between districts that enroll more students of color, either black or Hispanic, and those that were more likely to allow students to graduate via the alternatives. Some folks might argue that such data are evidence that softened requirements are needed. At Fordham, we believe that’s nothing more than the soft bigotry of low expectations. Plenty of students face significant challenges, but that doesn’t mean they’re incapable of meeting state standards.
Which brings us to ADCs, a mechanism that requires the state to intervene in chronically underperforming school districts. So far, this policy has followed a pattern that’s almost identical to what happened with graduation requirements. First, legislators realized that the law wasn’t rigorous enough. Next, the General Assembly significantly strengthened the state’s level of intervention and the standards for poor performing districts. Then a firestorm erupted, this time with dire warnings of “chaos” and “dysfunction”—just shy of the “apocalypse,” as critics of graduation standards put it—proclaimed by adults angry at losing power, and with the very real indictment that they have failed in their responsibility to serve students. In response, lawmakers were sent scrambling. Since then, they’ve produced several solutions that are, unsurprisingly, completely at odds with the original purpose of an ADC—to intervene on behalf of students trapped in academically languishing schools and to incentivize struggling districts to improve.
To be sure, the parallel between graduation requirements and ADCs isn’t perfect. There are some flaws with ADCs, and those problems need to be addressed. But for the most part, both policies are further evidence that Ohio has a hard time sticking things out when the going gets tough. That’s a shame. Buckeye students deserve lawmakers who are committed to working in their best interest, regardless of the pressure they get from other adults.
In a concerted effort to improve sector quality, Ohio has wisely strengthened its charter school laws. The reforms include a rigorous evaluation system for sponsors—the gatekeepers of quality as they authorize and directly oversee public charter schools—and good-governance provisions designed to build confidence in the sector. These reforms have been vigorously implemented, and they’ve helped prod bad actors—both schools and sponsors—to change their ways or take a hike. Evidence from school report cards and a recent evaluation indicate promising signs of improvement in performance after the reforms. And now that there’s a stronger accountability framework in place, policymakers are taking more active steps to narrow longstanding charter funding gaps.
In sum, a lot of good is coming from these efforts. But as with all reforms, course corrections are often needed as implementation issues arise. The House-passed version of the state budget bill addresses a few important problems in the charter accountability framework, but the lower chamber misses the mark by overcompensating in their proposed solutions. They risk turning back the clock to an era of looser standards and less certain quality. As the bill winds through the upper chamber, senators should reconsider the House’s approach on the following issues and tackle them in a more careful way.
Sponsor evaluations
The House proposal would give five-year reprieves from state evaluations to sponsors that receive “Effective” ratings. Some context is needed to understand what’s going on. In fall 2016, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) rolled out a revamped evaluation system that aimed to rein in lax sponsorship practices that many, including us at Fordham, believed were contributing to uneven sector performance. The evaluation consists of three components: (1) the academic performance of sponsors’ schools; (2) compliance with various laws and regulations; and (3) adherence with quality practices. After combining these results, an overall rating of Exemplary, Effective, Ineffective, or Poor is assigned.
The evaluation system has worked largely as intended, driving out low-quality and less-committed sponsors. Sixty-five sponsors were active in 2015–16, compared to only thirty-four in 2017–18. Most of the departed sponsors were school districts that authorized a single school, usually a dropout-recovery charter. The system has also encouraged more attentive sponsorship practices. For instance, more sponsors are now closing chronic low performers by non-renewing or terminating school contracts. They also seem to be pickier about startup applicants.
But the system has also been a bureaucratic nightmare for sponsors due to the excessive amount of paperwork involved in the compliance and quality practices reviews. In response to these concerns, some legislators seem to have been convinced that giving exemptions from the system is the best solution. The House proposal provides five-year reprieves from evaluations to sponsors that receive three consecutive years of an Effective rating, criteria that would likely exempt a large number of sponsors. For instance, four sponsors (including Fordham) received Effective ratings for the past three years, and another eleven have done so in the past two. Taken together, these fifteen sponsors authorize 81 percent of Ohio charter schools.
I can sympathize with the frustrations of sponsors: No one wants to spend weeks filling out paperwork and uploading documents. It’s not only irritating, it’s also a poor use of time and resources. But the answer isn’t to grant wholesale exemptions that allow sponsors to ignore the academic performance of schools for half a decade. There are other, more nuanced solutions that would maintain a strong accountability mechanism but also reduce the onerous burdens involved in the compliance and quality practices reviews. They include the following options, both of which we at Fordham have suggested before.
Both of these options ensure that sponsors—just like school districts—are held accountable on an annual basis for the academic performance of the schools they oversee. They would also address sponsors’ concerns about the burdens of the compliance and quality practices reviews.
Sponsor assurances
In 2007, Ohio lawmakers enacted provisions that require sponsors, on an annual basis, to verify that their schools meet baseline operational standards before serving students. These “pre-opening assurances,” which sponsors submit to ODE in writing, are a critical check on whether the charter school has, for example, completed a health and safety inspection, conducted criminal background checks, obtained liability insurance, and created a plan for special education. Like an airplane pilot doing a routine check before flying a plane, these basic assurances ensure that schools are operationally sound and children are not put in harm’s way.
The House legislation, however, removes this annual check, and instead requires sponsors to conduct assurances only when a school is brand-new or when it changes buildings. This means that sponsors would not need to conduct pre-opening assurances in the vast majority of their schools. One possible motivation for this proposal is that, over the years, ODE has piled on some likely unnecessary assurances that have made the process more laborious. For instance, ODE now asks questions around budget forecasts, which are not explicitly mentioned in statute. But as with sponsor evaluations, the solution isn’t to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than simply excusing sponsors from this important duty, legislators should make sure that the assurances provisions require sponsors to check the most critical basic protocols needed each year to safely open a school—the original intention of the law.
Accountability for dropout-recovery charter schools
Dropout recovery schools are specially designated charters that have been held accountable via alternative school report cards since 2014–15. Dropout-recovery report cards include less conventional metrics, such as a growth measure from a national exam and extended cohort graduation rates (e.g., an eight-year rate). They also exclude more traditional measures, like the state’s performance index and indicators of readiness for post-secondary success (ACT/SAT scores or career-tech credentials). Overall, their use has been controversial. Some people, myself included, think they expect less of dropout-recovery schools. Others argue that they are fair—or even too demanding—given the backgrounds of the students they serve.
But a House provision would stop—for an indeterminate time period—the release of any report cards. Specifically, the bill calls for a study committee tasked with examining the “classification, authorization, and report card ratings” of certain dropout-recovery schools. That’s probably a good idea given the disagreements surrounding their report cards. But there’s a twist: The state is prohibited from issuing dropout-recovery report cards until the committee releases its report and the legislature acts in some manner to revise the report cards. This is almost certain to give dropout-recovery schools a reprieve from 2018–19 report cards and likely well into the future. If the legislature chooses not to do anything, it would end dropout-recovery report cards—a clear abdication of the state’s responsibility to hold all schools accountable for pupil results.
***
There is one House proposal that merits support: the modification of the automatic closure criteria for charter schools, something I’ve written about at length elsewhere. While it may appear to be another blow to charter accountability, the provision would actually ensure that this mechanism works as originally intended—forcing closure of the very lowest-performing schools. Instead of basing mandatory closure on two poor school ratings in three years, the House would require closure upon three consecutive years of poor ratings. Due to the increased rigor of the overall state accountability framework, a three-year timetable is justified.
The Senate should approve the adjustments on automatic closure. But it should rethink the way the House handles issues regarding sponsors and dropout-recovery charter schools. Ohio has made significant progress in recent years on charter-school accountability. It’s prudent to fine-tune sponsor regulations—but, as written, the House changes go way too far and risks slipping back into old habits.
If you live in Ohio and pay attention to education-related news, you’ve probably heard about academic distress commissions (ADCs), a mechanism that requires the state to intervene in chronically underperforming school districts. ADCs have been around since 2005, but it wasn’t until 2015 when Governor Kasich pushed the General Assembly to significantly strengthen the state’s intervention model that they became so controversial.
Some of this controversy is understandable. There are a few fundamental flaws with the current ADC model, as enacted via House Bill 70, and they must be addressed. Unfortunately, nuanced debate about potential solutions has been lost amidst breathless media coverage of all the suing, complaining, objecting, and squabbling over power. Conflict sells.
Lorain, in particular, seems to be ground zero. Local papers have reported on failures of communication between the CEO and the board, lack of data sharing outside the administration, funding questions, and votes of no confidence. The local police chief has declared that the district is “fraught with friction” and dysfunction. And as is the case with most controversial topics, there has been no shortage of political and professional opportunists.
Given all this sound and fury, one might assume that Lorain’s schools are drowning in chaos and disaster. But even a cursory look at these news stories shows it’s a small number of the same voices speaking again and again, echoing each other and spinning each grievance into a repetitive vortex. Differing opinions have rarely, if ever, been reported to the public.
Now, thanks to an open hearing in the Senate last week, that’s no longer the case. Administrators, community members, and the district’s CEO all provided testimony about what’s really happening on the ground in Lorain. They made three important points.
1. State intervention was needed
In the seemingly never-ending debate about the best way to fix poor-performing schools, it’s easy to lose sight of why such intervention is needed. In other cities with ADCs—particularly Youngstown—the media has routinely reminded the public why their schools are under the control of a commission (Spoiler alert: It’s their persistent and appallingly low academic performance.) But in Lorain, the local media has largely amplified critics’ voices and ignored the woeful track record of the district. That’s why those who testified last week took it upon themselves to remind lawmakers why an ADC exists in Lorain in the first place. CEO David Hardy emphasized the massive task set before the ADC after years of poor performance under previous leadership: “We must recognize that one out of four children reading on grade level by third grade is not acceptable; that 900 failing grades from one grade level alone is unacceptable; that 1 percent of a graduating class being deemed college or career ready—as it is in Lorain—is criminal. And all of our time and energy must be allocated to create a culture that acts on these problems.”
Kejuana Jefferson, a principal in Lorain, echoed Hardy’s sentiments and contrasted them with the complaints lawmakers are hearing from ADC opponents: “Egos have been bruised, and because of this bruising, the board has worked in conjunction with a few parents to organize against state control so you are hearing the screams of politics, but what is also screaming is low ACT scores, low performance on state assessments, and the lack of basic writing skills which our scholars will need as they matriculate into the work force or throughout their college experience.” Monica Snipes, the parent of a student who attends school in the district, acknowledged that although the community was initially suspicious of the ADC, its presence was needed: “We may not like the fact that HB 70 was seemingly just put upon us, but if we are honest...our kids were not getting the education they deserved, and finally legislators did something about it.”
2. The media and ADC critics aren’t telling the whole story
Loretta Jones, a former administrator with the district, began her testimony by noting that the introduction and passage of House Bills 154 and 166 prove that the information lawmakers have been given about Lorain is “wrong and terribly incomplete.” She also questioned whether it was actually representative of the community, since many people have spent years “going unheard because we are not in power and do not represent the same privilege as those who have come to you with lies and deceit.” Meanwhile, Jefferson pointed out that, in their community, local control “reeks of political moves, power plays, and arrogance. This is small town politics at its best, but I must speak for the children who are affected by these moves and political plays. Local control allowed our scholars to live in failure for a decade. Can you imagine the economic repercussions of this?”
In listening to such passionate testimony, it’s possible that lawmakers wondered why those on the ground didn’t speak up sooner. Snipes offered an unprompted and troubling answer: “The truth is so many teachers want to speak up and speak out but know they can’t cross company lines and side with the so-called ‘enemy.’ There are hundreds of teachers and staff members across the district that [are] so thankful for the change that is happening. Yet they are afraid to speak up because of the voices and names you hear over and over again in the media.” CEO Hardy expressed similar concerns. “People would rather share their voice in the grocery store, bakery, or at church, or through an email pleading with me not to share their name, than to face the wrath of their local politician and the 3 percent that has elected them.”
As for accusations that Hardy and other ADC leaders haven’t engaged with the community, Jones called them untrue. “Upon entering the district, the CEO engaged in multiple community forums to seek input,” she said. “There were over 3,000 touchpoints that lead to the creation of The Lorain Promise, our strategic plan.” Hardy, meanwhile, asserted that the extremely difficult job of turning around a persistently low-performing district has left him “little time or energy to be political and cater to the powers who have neglected our children, misspent millions of dollars on duplicative services, and want nothing more than control of the purse strings of the largest budget in a dying city economy.”
3. Lorain has seen progress under the ADC
Another common criticism leveled at the Lorain ADC is that it hasn’t made any progress. Jefferson, however, pointed out that “research indicates that it takes a minimum of three to five years to turn around a failing school/district.” But still, schools in Lorain have seen improvements. “I am the principal of General Johnnie Wilson Middle School, and we have implemented the school turnaround strategies required by the district,” Jefferson told lawmakers. “We have seen an increase in our writing from 0.4 percent to 29 percent proficiency in one school year.”
CEO Hardy also had student-level data that signaled improvement. “This year alone, we will have a 54 percent increase in the number of scholars who will graduate high school with an associate degree and the highest enrollment in our Early College Programming beginning in ninth grade in the history of our district,” he said. “We have gone from three schools with pre-K programming to ten schools with five-star-rated pre-K programs.” There are also indications that the district is improving in other ways. “We moved out of financial caution and have a fund balance that remains steady and a budgetary process that is solvent after eliminating a $700,000 debt that was handed to me in the first thirty days of my job, along with millions of dollars allocated to multiple lawyers every year,” he shared. The best part? “This was all accomplished in the short, twenty-month tenure of our administration after twenty years of mismanagement and disregard for children.”
***
The law that guides ADC identification and implementation could definitely use some improvements. But having an accountability mechanism in place to spur struggling districts to improve has also proved necessary. Without it, districts have little incentive to change. Places like Lorain still have a considerable amount of work to do. But Lorain’s ADC is contributing to improvement, and it’s critical for state leaders to protect that growth.
“We have to allow the current law to work,” Principal Jefferson told lawmakers as she closed out her testimony. “We are already seeing vast improvement within our data, but I am afraid that you have only heard one side of this story. Our teachers and our scholars are improving, and we need more support from the state level to ensure that this momentum continues here in Lorain.” Amen.
When it comes to high standards and accountability, Ohio talks a pretty good talk. Many of the most popular education reforms of the day have already been proposed or passed in the Buckeye State, and a few have even been hailed as best in the country. As these policies have been implemented, however, and as sometimes unwelcome consequences begin to kick in, Buckeye policymakers have had a difficult time walking the walk. In fact, they’ve shown a lamentable habit of backing down in the face of pressure to weaken accountability.
Take the ongoing uproar over graduation requirements. Back in November, district superintendents started to warn of a graduation “apocalypse” in which a third of the class of 2018 might fall short of the state’s new and more rigorous graduation requirements. Despite many unanswered questions, the State Board has recommended that students be permitted to graduate regardless of whether they pass end-of-course exams or meet career and technical requirements. Instead, they’ll only need to two of eight conditions, a list that includes such rudimentary achievements as 93 percent attendance or 120 hours of work/community service during their senior year. As my colleagues have pointed out, the board’s proposal is “awash in questionable options that are open to gaming and don’t assure that young people are ready for success in college or career.”
Even more than that, it’s the perfect example of failing to walk the walk. Graduation requirements were raised because too few products of Ohio high schools were prepared for success despite having a diploma in hand. The Ohio Graduation Tests were replaced because they tested middle school knowledge levels and were a breeze to pass. Policymakers made changes because they recognized that a low bar creates a false impression of success—and many young people are then destined to stumble as soon as they encounter the higher bars of college and the real world. But now, in the wake of political pressure and the reality of what it means not just to favor accountability but to implement it, lawmakers are being asked to walk back their expectations. None of our reasons for raising the bar has changed. All that’s changed is the reality that implementation will have unwelcome near-term consequences as we pursue necessary long-term gains.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time the Buckeye State has backed off accountability. Back in 2012, the General Assembly adopted the third-grade reading guarantee. The underlying concept is straightforward and laudable: kids (with some exceptions) may not enter fourth grade until they demonstrate minimum competency in reading. Ample data show that reading proficiently by the end of third grade is a “make-or-break benchmark in a child’s educational development.” But as the first year of Ohio’s new guarantee got under way, many folks started to worry that significant percentages of kids would be held back. What to do? State policymakers opted to let students be promoted to fourth grade based on alternative tests approved by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). In some places during the first year of implementation, the number of students who failed the state test but passed an alternative were staggering: Cincinnati Public Schools reduced the number of possible retentions from nearly 900 to 100 just by offering alternative assessments. If significant percentages of Ohio third graders pass the guarantee only because of these alternative tests, one must ask why it’s so much easier to pass them than to earn a proficient score on the state exam. Is the policy now a “reading guarantee” riddled with holes?
In 2014, lawmakers created a “safe harbor” policy to shield students, schools, and teachers from accountability as Ohio transitioned to new standards and assessments. That protection period was extended two more years via the 2015 budget, and bills currently in the House would extend it farther. Though it’s understandable that teachers and students need time to adjust to higher standards and new assessments, what’s a reasonable grace period? Ohio’s safe harbor has turned into the pretense of holding schools accountable for results without actually doing so.
Up in northeast Ohio, the much acclaimed Cleveland Plan was created to substantially improve academic performance in the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) through a variety of aggressive reforms—including a teacher merit pay system that would reward the district’s strongest instructors. The plan garnered the support from a wide spectrum of hopeful fans, including the city’s mayor, school district officials, the teachers union, the General Assembly, and Governor Kasich. Fast forward approximately four years, however, and reform advocates have abandoned merit pay in the face of fierce opposition from a teachers union that reversed its position.
While other states have modeled how to set high expectations and stick with them even when the going gets tough, Ohio continues to soften accountability lest it make people unhappy. What the General Assembly is being asked to do on graduation standards isn’t likely to be a temporary fix—given recent history, it is more likely to become enduring policy. Ohio doesn’t need lawmakers who are spooked by hard choices; it needs leaders who stand up with courage and focus on the state’s long-term well-being.
Here’s hoping that the Governor and legislative leaders recognize the opportunity that’s before them. Choosing to do hard, sometimes painful work now instead of kicking the accountability can down the road for others to try to take care of at some indeterminate future point is plenty hard. But it’s also the right thing to do.
NOTE: Today, the Senate Finance Committee heard testimony on HB 166, the state’s new biennial budget bill. Among its many education-related provisions are a number which would make changes to Ohio’s accountability system and to both charter school and private school choice. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy and Advocacy delivered testimony on these and other provisions. These are his written remarks.
Thank you, Chair Dolan, Vice Chair Burke, Ranking Member Sykes, and members of the Senate Finance Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony today on some of the education provisions in HB 166.
My name is Chad Aldis, and I am the Vice President for Ohio Policy and Advocacy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. The Fordham Institute is an education-focused nonprofit that conducts research, analysis, and policy advocacy with offices in Columbus, Dayton, and Washington, D.C. Our Dayton office is also an Ohio charter school sponsor.
Fordham believes that public education plays a critical role in helping every student to reach his or her potential. And we support efforts that ensure all students have opportunities to attend high-quality schools and exit high school with the knowledge and skills necessary for college, career, or military service.
There are a variety of provisions either in HB 166 or being debated that I will address.
Graduation requirements
In Ohio, we’ve long recognized that a high-school diploma shouldn’t be a participation trophy but rather a credential awarded after young people demonstrate readiness to take their next step in life. For decades, Ohio has required students to meet course requirements and pass state exams to graduate. But upon concerns about the Ohio Graduation Tests’ lack of rigor, the state moved to new standards that now ask young people to meet more stringent benchmarks on state exams, earn a college-ready ACT or SAT score, or earn industry recognized credentials.
These requirements have been strongly contested and alternative routes have been offered to the classes of 2018 to 2020. We have vigorously opposed lower-level options. Young people who graduate based on weak alternatives are harmed when they exit high school lacking the skills needed for lifelong success. Throughout this debate, however, we’ve recognized the potential need to modify the original plan in light of present realities. And we’ve said that students struggling to meet readiness standards deserve the time and supports needed to reach that goal.
With the long-term graduation requirements for the classes of 2021 and beyond still in question, we support the proposal of Ohio Excels, a nonprofit coalition of Ohio business leaders, and the Alliance for High Quality Education (AHQE), a group representing seventy-four school districts.
Briefly, the proposal works like this. Students must demonstrate competency on the state’s Algebra I and English II end-of-course exams. If, after receiving remedial supports and retaking these exams, they haven’t met the competency targets, students may earn diplomas based on satisfying military enlistment guidelines or meeting career-and-technical requirements that include either earning industry credentials, completing an apprenticeship, or passing state exams linked to technical courses. Continuing current practice, all students must meet the state’s course requirements but the proposal also adds requirements that students earn seals based on non-academic skills to ensure that students are well rounded.
Taken together, the Ohio Excels and Alliance’s proposal is a strong one. It assures us that students graduate with a solid academic foundation in English and math, are ready to join the military, or have the technical skills and experiences they need to embark on rewarding careers. We therefore recommend that the Ohio Excels and Alliance’s proposal be adopted as the state’s permanent graduation requirements.
School report cards
HB 166 would make the overall grade of a school (applies to districts, too) the higher of the performance index or the value added measure. This would result in a dramatic increase in grades in more than 200 schools around the state. At the same time, the letter grades for more than 200 other schools would decrease because of the change. Ohio families and taxpayers deserve a view of overall school quality that considers both student achievement and growth over time, not one or the other. We urge the Senate to remove this poorly vetted provision added in the House.
Nevertheless, we know Ohio report cards have come under fire in recent years and believe they can be improved. In a report released in December 2017, we outlined several changes that would result in a fairer, more streamlined report card. The key changes we recommend include:
We agree that there is room to improve school report cards. But the revisions need to be undertaken carefully, with transparency to Ohio families and taxpayers first in mind. We believe our recommendations would move Ohio toward a simpler, clearer, and fairer report card.
EdChoice Income-Based Expansion
Low-income students continue to have the fewest options when it comes to finding the right school. We support the continued expansion of this private school choice opportunity. Importantly, the demand for the EdChoice Income-Based scholarship has outstripped available funding the last couple of years. We support the state taking steps to ensure these students—all low-income—are not subjected to lotteries and waiting lists.
Since House Bill 2 reformed Ohio’s charter school laws, the General Assembly has trod very carefully on the issue and hasn’t made many changes. This pause in legislative action has given us time to identify some areas where changes are merited. HB 166 tackles some of those issues. While we are supportive of some of the changes, others could materially weaken charter school accountability just as the sector is showing signs of improvement.
Here are some of the provisions we believe are significant:
In recent years, Ohio has undertaken major reforms aimed at improving the readiness of students for college and careers. With some course corrections, Ohio can continue to build momentum towards its goal of having all young people graduate fully ready to tackle the challenges of tomorrow. If we reverse course, our students—especially the most disadvantaged—will suffer most.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have.
NOTE: Today the Ohio Senate’s Education Committee heard testimony on the state’s current academic distress framework for intervening in for consistently low-performing school districts. Fordham vice president Chad Aldis testified as a proponent of the bill. These are his written remarks.
Thank you Chair Lehner, Vice Chair Terhar, Ranking Member Fedor, and Senate Education Committee members for giving me the opportunity today to provide testimony on academic distress commissions.
My name is Chad Aldis, and I am the Vice President for Ohio Policy and Advocacy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. The Fordham Institute is an education-focused nonprofit that conducts research, analysis, and policy advocacy with offices in Columbus, Dayton, and Washington, D.C.
Fordham believes that every student should be well-prepared to achieve success as an adult. To that end, we support efforts that ensure all students have opportunities to attend high-quality schools and exit high school with the knowledge and skills necessary for college, career, or military service. We also believe that the state has a responsibility to ensure that low-performing districts and schools improve for the sake of their students. Evidence from top-performing states show that adopting rigorous accountability policies—and sticking with them—can lead to strong improvements in student achievement, especially among less advantaged children.
In 2015, when this body reworked the original academic distress commission (ADC) law via House Bill 70, the motivation behind the changes was simple: Persistently low-performing schools weren’t making significant improvements and stronger interventions were needed. Despite these good intentions, HB 70 has resulted in considerable controversy and criticism—especially from local school boards, as the updated law substantially lessened their power. This diminishing of local control, combined with the inherent difficulty and complexity of school turnarounds, has caused significant frustration.
In an attempt to address the controversy, representatives in the House included provisions from a separately proposed bill within their changes to the proposed state budget. These provisions would dissolve all current academic distress commissions and prevent the establishment of new commissions. They would also require schools (rather than districts) with an overall grade of F to establish improvement teams and implement an improvement plan if it receives an overall grade of F for a second consecutive year.
There are several reasons why this body should reject the House’s changes. First, although jettisoning the ADC model rather than improving it would be politically popular, it would come at the expense of students. The districts currently under ADC control have consistently weak academic growth, low college completion rates, and few students reaching proficiency in basic subjects. Some of the districts have been performing poorly for ten years or more. Their schools are producing graduates who aren’t prepared for college or the workplace—and families, communities, and local businesses are paying the price.
But don’t take my word for it. Recently, the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education had the chance to hear testimony from administrators, former teachers, and parents in Lorain and an ADC member in Youngstown. While I won’t rehash their powerful words, I would like to point out three common threads that are woven through their remarks. First, they asserted that state intervention in their district was needed after years of poor performance and neglect by local school boards and leaders. Second, they emphasized that the media and critics of ADCs are failing to tell the whole story of what’s happening on the ground. Prior to the creation of an ADC, they argued, local leaders ignored community input and worked only in their own best interest. Now that these leaders out of power, they’re fighting to regain it by magnifying problems and sowing discord. Third, both Youngstown and Lorain have seen progress while under the aegis of an ADC. There is still plenty of work to be done, of course. But these districts may very well be on the right path, and turning them around completely will take time. If the state doesn’t give the current law time to work, it risks any progress that has been made.
If these views aren’t compelling enough to reject the House’s changes, consider the problems with what they’ve proposed:
First, the provisions do not address what happens when schools fail to improve after four years of local intervention. The state has an obligation to families and taxpayers to step in when students aren’t being served well, and four years of consecutive F grades is a pretty clear indication that something is wrong. If local districts can’t improve on their own within four years, then the state needs to step up and intervene.
Second, there are no clear exit criteria for schools that improve. This leaves school improvement at the mercy of the interpretation of state-level bureaucrats, and prevents schools that are under the “in need of improvement” label from setting and achieving clear goals and benchmarks.
Third, schools are not required to track student achievement and student growth as part of their improvement plans. Given that achievement and growth are the most heavily weighted measures in determining a school’s overall grade, it seems nonsensical that improvement teams and plans wouldn’t be focused on improving these measures. It is also troubling that the bill doesn’t seem interested in requiring schools—whose primary purpose is to educate children—to track objective measures of academic progress.
Fourth, there is no mechanism for making sure that improvement plans are actually evidence-based. The district board and superintendent are required to review the plan and seek community feedback, but there is no objective entity that is charged with making sure plans are based on rigorous evidence. Prudence suggests it might be smart to have the department use its technical expertise to develop an expansive menu of evidence-based reforms that districts could choose from, though there should also be an appeals process in place in case a local plan is developed that seems promising but hasn’t yet shown widespread success.
As you weigh ADC law and the larger question of how best to intervene in low-performing schools, I urge you not to repeat the mistakes made by the House. Additionally, remember why academic distress commissions were established in the first place. Every student deserves to attend a high quality school, and the state has an obligation to ensure that persistently low-performing schools are both held accountable and spurred toward improvement. The stakes are extremely high for the students in these schools, and they can’t afford to restart the clock and wait for even newer reforms to be implemented.
According to a recent What Works Clearinghouse review, the most effective dropout-prevention strategy is to directly connect schoolwork to students’ career aspirations. Towpath Trail High School in Akron is a real life embodiment of that strategy. Author Lyman Millard of the Bloomwell Group offers a fascinating look at a school that engages at-risk young people through career and technical education. He also gives us a look into the lives of three students. One young woman—a refugee from the war-torn Middle East—found a new home at Towpath Trail. She has thrived there and now dreams of becoming a heart surgeon. This is the story—the human face—of dropout prevention done right.
Editor’s Note: Back in September 2018, awaiting the election of our next governor, we at the Fordham Institute began developing a set of policy proposals that we believe can lead to increased achievement and greater opportunities for Ohio students. This is one of those policy proposals.
With Mike DeWine sworn in as Ohio’s 70th governor, and with his administration now well underway, we are proud to roll out the full set of our education policy proposals. You can download the full document, titled Fulfilling the Readiness Promise: Twenty-five education policy ideas for Ohio, at this link, or you can access the individual policy proposals from the links provided here.
Proposal: Create a fund that provides bonuses to AP or IB teachers when their students pass these exams, with larger bonuses to teachers working in high-poverty districts.
Background: Both the AP and IB programs are widely viewed as rigorous academic programs. For students, passing AP and IB assessments can mean earning college credit while saving time and tuition money. Ohio incentivizes schools to help students pass AP or IB exams through the state report card system. The Prepared for Success component provides bonus credit when graduates pass at least one of these exams. Nevertheless, too few Ohio schools provide AP or IB courses for high-achieving students—and an even smaller number of students achieve passing scores. As figure 5 below indicates, fewer than 10 percent of rural students have an opportunity to take an AP course, and even smaller fractions pass an exam before they graduate high school. The lack of AP opportunities is also evident in small towns and urban areas. Less than 1 percent of students statewide take IB courses (not displayed in the chart below). Though various factors contribute to low AP or IB course taking and test-passage rates, one explanation might be teachers who are less willing to bear the time commitments needed for rigorous AP or IB instruction, especially in schools where there may not be “critical masses” of students interested in a particular subject.
Figure 1: AP course taking and exam-passage rates (score of three or above) by district typology, Ohio’s graduating classes of 2015 and 2016
Source: ODE, School Report Cards: Download Data (District Prepared for Success file)
Proposal rationale: Ohio should encourage schools to offer rigorous coursework to high achievers, including opportunities to take AP/IB courses and exams. This program would provide an incentive for teachers to go the extra mile to help students pass exams that give them a head start on their college education. Akin to the discussion on AP/IB exam fees, it’s important to bear in mind that these proposals are modest steps toward solving problems of access to high-quality advanced coursework, especially for high-achieving, low-income students.
Cost: The state should allocate an additional $6 million per year for this initiative. College Board data indicate that in 2017, Ohio students passed 81,781 AP exams; this appropriation would provide average teacher bonuses of roughly $70 per test passed.
Resources: For more data on AP test taking in Ohio, see College Board’s “AP Program Participation and Performance Data 2017.” Since 2000, Florida has provided its AP teachers bonuses based on students’ exam performance: see Jay Matthews’ article “Paying Teachers and Students for Good Scores” in the Washington Post (2004) and Foundation for Excellence in Education’s Florida’s Education Revolution: A Summary (2013). And for an overview of how other states incentivize AP enrollment, see the Education Commission of the States’ 50-State Comparison of Financial Incentives for AP Courses.
