Posted just six hours after the close of Mother’s Day, this eerily titled article, “Some school districts tail parents to check where family actually lives,” discussed the lengths to which some parents go to enroll their child in a “desirable school
Posted just six hours after the close of Mother’s Day, this eerily titled article, “Some school districts tail parents to check where family actually lives,” discussed the lengths to which some parents go to enroll their child in a “desirable school district”—and the lengths to which some districts go to keep such “outsiders” at bay. Nothing says we cherish or appreciate moms like this description of a local residency investigation that resulted in a child being forcibly withdrawn from a local school. As the Columbus Dispatch reported:
“In April, lots of Bexley residents chimed in over social media when an outraged mother posted that the Bexley school district hired a private investigator to tail her for months to see if she and her young son actually live at her mother’s house. She said she works multiple jobs and isn’t at home much. In the Facebook post that has since been removed, she said her son had been kicked out of school with only five weeks left in the year...”
In response, the district’s attorney, Gregory Scott defended the district’s actions saying:
“There’s nothing nefarious about that [legally following someone in public].”
“Districts that choose to close their enrollment are not depriving any children of an education. Every square mile of Ohio is served by a school district.”
Scott spoke with the perfunctory tone and callous precision one might expect from someone tasked with investigating families and booting small children to the curb. Of course, he’s right that “Every square mile of Ohio” is within some school district boundary and that all children are zoned for particular public schools. Yet his statement is akin to a hospital director saying that the patients she ousted mid-treatment can receive triage care at the local Emergency Room or at another hospital.
It’s true that no child in Ohio is deprived of “an education,” but too many are deprived of an excellent one—the kind the Bexley City Schools are said to provide. Are we supposed to celebrate the mere availability of public schooling, whatever its quality? Maybe if it were 1825, when the Ohio General Assembly first passed the law establishing common schools. But almost two centuries later, when historically underserved children continue to get short shrift in K-12 public education, not so much.
[[{"fid":"118653","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","attributes":{"height":"314","width":"400","class":"media-element file-default"},"link_text":null}]]
Bexley Superintendent Mike Johnson’s remarks were also problematic when he tried to explain to the Dispatch how families “stretch their finances to move into the city and enroll.” Look, I don’t doubt that many families make sacrifices to be able to afford houses in Bexley, be it a $580,000, 5-bedroom home “with lots of space for a mudroom” or more modest options in the mid-$200k range.[1]
[[{"fid":"118654","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","attributes":{"height":"305","width":"600","class":"media-element file-default"},"link_text":null}]]
Those families are doing the right thing when they make sacrifices to choose better options for their children by purchasing homes in places with good schools. That’s their prerogative. (Some would say that’s their duty.) And I don’t minimize the capacity and resource constraints facing some of the school districts that have closed their doors to open enrollment. (However, the fact that most districts refusing open enrollment are located just outside the bounds of Ohio’s largest and poorest cities tells me there’s likely more to it than crowded classrooms. Stay tuned for more on this soon, as Fordham will be releasing a report on open enrollment in Ohio on June 6.)
But we need to stop pretending that it’s within the power of most Ohio families to afford homes or apartments in the state’s top rated school districts. When we talk about school choice, we need to be more honest—whether in public debates, in the media, even in conversation with friends, families, and neighbors. Here are a few suggestions.
First, recognize that nearly every family with school-age children and the means to move to a good school district has already exercised “school choice.” Choice is not limited to vouchers, public charter schools, online schooling—options viewed by some as reprehensible attempts to destroy public education. Opting into one’s zoned neighborhood school when it has excellent academic programming, beautiful, safe spaces to learn, and top-notch teachers doesn’t make you a truer public school parent than the mom who drives her child 45 minutes to open enroll in a neighboring district, or the dad who sends his children to a public charter school. Similarly, the parent or soon-to-be parent who buys a home in the best district in the state after carefully researching its schools has a lot in common with the one who searches out a scholarship for her child to attend a private school. We need to stop other-izing and vilifying those who exercise more overt forms of choice, and stop pretending that traditional public school parents are more civic minded—or better citizens—simply because they’ve opted into systems that are, in many instances, already great choices for their children.
Second, challenge the bootstrap mentality and borderline victim-blaming that emerges in these discussions. While perhaps unintended, Superintendent Johnson’s remarks regarding Bexley parents making financial sacrifices to move into his district and attend its great schools can perpetuate harmful misinformation about the roots of inequality. While it’s certainly true that many families work hard and make sacrifices to move into certain neighborhoods and access the schools that serve them, there are many more families for whom such excellent neighborhood options are beyond reach. Lurking beneath this stance is also callous disregard of historical and present realities in America regarding segregation, housing discrimination, and generational poverty.
Ask yourself the following questions:
If you’re a homeowner, did you inherit wealth from your family in order to be able to buy a home? Did your parents or in-laws contribute toward your down payment?
Did your family help you pay for college? Did they buy or help you buy your first car, computer, or other large expenses?
Have you ever experienced racial discrimination when attempting to rent or purchase an apartment or home?
These questions might help folks consider how or why it may not be as easy for a working-class or middle-class person—especially those saddled with student loans, car payments, or credit card debt—from opting into their neighborhood of choice. We should also acknowledge the reality that people of color face barriers during the home buying process that white families don’t.
Third, put yourself in the other person’s shoes. Pretend that tomorrow you’ll face a lottery that will rezone your and everyone else’s children. When your name is pulled out of the hat, your kids stand just as much chance of being forced to attend your area’s lowest-rated schools as they do the best schools—in some communities maybe even a higher chance.
Then imagine that your child was randomly rezoned to the lowest-performing school in your community, and that politicians, community leaders, or parents whose children lucked into the good schools told you that you need to wait some indeterminate period for society as a whole to fix systemic issues that made your school crummy in the first place. It doesn’t take much imagination to continue this thought exercise, wondering what it’d feel like when those same folks attacked your democratic values for insisting that the current system available to your child just isn’t good enough. Under such circumstances, perhaps even slipping your child around the rules and barriers of a system that is arbitrarily rigged against you would begin to seem like a reasonable alternative.
The Dispatch article reminds us of the many thousands of families for whom that is an actual, modern-day reality. It’s true—and fortunate—that Ohio has fairly robust programs of choice available to families, including several private-school scholarships, public charter schools, and open enrollment offered in some form by over 80 percent of districts. But the wealthy districts here in central Ohio that keep kids out and that spend money to investigate residency infractions have some soul-searching to do. So does anyone whose NIMBYism prevents them from even rudimentary empathy regarding the schooling realities facing other families. Anyone fortunate enough to have secured an excellent option for their own child owes it to less privileged families to engage honestly in school choice debates, and at minimum, to move out of the way of other families searching and fighting desperately for what they’ve already procured for their own kids.
[1] At least one of Bexley’s neighborhoods is ranked in the top 100 highest-income neighborhoods in the U.S. While nearly all Columbus City students are economically disadvantaged, just one in ten Bexley students are.
Performance-based funding in the public sector has begun to take root in recent years, most prominently in higher education and in merit-pay plans for some teachers. It’s based on the belief that in order to incentivize stronger performance by individuals and institutions, policymakers should provide them with a portion of their funds based on demonstrated outcomes.
Ohio has also dabbled in performance-based funding for its K-12 schools. Starting in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, state lawmakers provided a $17-per-student bonus to high-performing districts—those rated “excellent” or “excellent with distinction.” That funding stream was not renewed in the next budget cycle but performance-based funding reappeared in a different form in FY 2016-17. Under present policy, districts (and charters) receive nominal bonuses based on their third-grade reading proficiency rates and their graduation rates. Altogether, Ohio spreads about $35 million per year in performance bonuses to each district, with sums typically ranging from $10 to $50 per student. All districts receive some amount of bonus funding.
Ohio’s budget bill (for FY 18-19) keeps these bonus programs intact, and we certainly applaud the rationale and the intent. Yet performance-based funding in its present K-12 form has several flaws, and we’ve recommended in testimony that lawmakers significantly modify or eliminate it. Here’s why:
First, spreading bonuses across all districts dilutes the power of the incentive. By awarding bonuses of similar amounts to every district, the program affirms that everyone is doing a decent job—and little needs to change. In fact, districts with abysmal graduation rates or reading proficiency receive bonuses, sometimes in amounts on par with Ohio’s highest performers. For example, East Cleveland posted the lowest third-grade reading proficiency rate in the state—and received an extra $5 per pupil. Meanwhile, the eight districts reporting 100 percent proficiency earned bonuses ranging from $2 to $26 per student. This is akin to a company awarding all of its employees similar end-of-year bonuses: When everyone is guaranteed a nearly equal share of the pie, why bother trying to go above and beyond?
Second, the bonus amounts are too small to spur higher performance. The goal of the program is admirable: to drive school improvement. But with the widespread distribution of bonus checks to every district in the state—and the relatively small pot to start with—the amounts shrivel to pocket change. Will the prospect of a few extra dollars per pupil do much to incentivize districts to deliver higher performance? Doubtful. Bonuses of this magnitude pale in comparison to the $13,000 per student that an average Ohio district receives in combination from its various streams of taxpayer support (local, state, and federal).
Third, Ohio uses questionable performance metrics to determine bonuses. While we see the logic of rewarding third-grade reading proficiency and high-school graduation, it’s flawed to base overall district performance on just those two metrics. Most evident is that third-grade reading proficiency reflects the achievement of a small fraction of a district’s students in a single subject. Likewise, high school graduation rates may not portray the performance of elementary and middle schools. It’s also well established that these measures correlate with demographics, so offering bonuses for high proficiency or graduation rates could reward districts for simply having fewer low-income students rather than for effectively driving increased student outcomes.
In an effort to overcome this problem, Ohio adjusts bonuses by districts’ state share index, which in school funding policy modifies funding amounts by districts’ wealth. This weakens the link between district demographics and bonus amounts—but it also breaks the link between bonuses and performance, making it much harder to view this funding stream as truly “performance based.” A simple example illustrates the conundrum: Last year, Cleveland, with a 66 percent graduation, rate received $17 per student in bonus funding, while Solon—a wealthier suburban district with a 98 graduation rate—received just $5 per student.
Instead of basing bonus payments on these problematic metrics, then working around the issues via state share adjustments, lawmakers should consider a more straightforward approach. They could use a district’s performance index and overall value-added grades over multiple years; this would cover more broadly the achievement and growth of district students. Or they could premise bonus payments on the state’s summative A-F ratings when those come online, especially if legislators tweak the rating formula. Given more generous bonus amounts—accomplished by increasing the pot of available funds and/or awarding bonuses to a smaller pool of districts—these options would better motivate districts to pursue ambitious yet achievable goals for achievement and/or growth.
Performance-based funding for schools has the potential to spur better outcomes for students. But the policy also needs to be well-designed to allow it to work as intended. Regrettably, Ohio’s current structure has defects that undermine the goal of incentive funding. Ohio lawmakers should consider overhauling performance-based funding or find other uses for these dollars.
Inequity in the City—the work of veteran authors of charter-school funding studies, including Inequity’s Next Frontier, Inequity Persists, and Inequity Expands—differs slightly from its predecessors because of its metropolitan focus. Its core finding is familiar, however: public charter schools face serious and persistent funding gaps compared to their district counterparts. (Will we ever get to read “Inequity Shrinks” or “Inequity Disappears”? One can dream.)
The analysts focused on 15 cities: Atlanta, Boston, Camden, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, New York City, Oakland, San Antonio, Tulsa, and Washington, D.C. These locales were selected for their high concentration of charters or their “potential for growth.” Data come from fiscal year 2014.
They examined revenue differences in these places between the charter and district schools sectors, including all sources of funding—local, state, federal, and nonpublic. In eight of the cities, the authors conducted longitudinal analyses. They also tested to see whether differences in the enrollment rates of students with special learning needs (defined broadly to include students who are low-income, English language learners, or with disabilities) might explain funding differences.
There are several notable findings:
The report also takes a deep dive into each revenue source (federal, state, local, nonpublic) and sheds light on the mechanics of how charters are (and aren’t) funded from each. But of course the overall amount is what matters most. In half of the cities, charters had higher state funding than district schools, but that edge turns into a net shortfall, given the dearth of local tax revenues for charters. (In Ohio, charter opponents employ the fact that charters get more state dollars than many district schools and overlook the truth that their overall revenues are far less.)
The city-to-city funding disparities are striking. DC district schools net $35,000 per pupil, versus $10,000 in Shelby County. Camden charters experience the greatest inequity in the sample (a gap of 45 percent and nearly $15,000 less per pupil) but district revenue per pupil is astronomical (almost $33,000). In fact, the cities that received the higher grades all had relatively low per-pupil amounts, meaning they were somewhat easier to match. But funding gaps between the two sectors remain a very big concern. A charter that receives far less per pupil than its district peer, even if its overall total might be decent, still struggle to keep teacher salaries competitive.
Finally the report reviews, albeit briefly, national evidence showing that charter schools have positive effects on student achievement. The authors are well aware that quantifying funding gaps is not just an exercise in discussing fairness. On average, across the nation and in several of the cities studied in this report, charters dramatically outperform their district counterparts despite these funding gaps. As the authors rightfully ask, “Might charters produce even better results if they were better resourced?” It’s a question about return on investment that’s worth taking very seriously.
SOURCE: Patrick J. Wolf, Larry D. Maloney, Jay F. May, Corey A. DeAngelis, “Charter School Funding: Inequity in the City,” University of Arkansas (May 2017).
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 was intended to improve student health and reduce childhood obesity by increasing the minimum nutritional standards that schools must meet. Despite its good intentions, the changes mandated by this act were met with immediate backlash. In response to the criticism and as part of its commitment to repeal a host of Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration recently put a stop to some of the new standards.
But could returning to the days of anything-goes in school cafeterias negatively impact student achievement? The results from a recent NBER study suggest it’s possible. In the past, analyses of school meals have been limited to examinations of whether providing meals can increase test scores (it does). This study is unique because it investigates whether the nutritional quality of meals can boost test scores.
The researchers examined a dataset of California public elementary, middle, and high schools that report state test results. From there, they determined whether these schools had a contract with a private meal provider. In total, approximately 143 districts overseeing 1,188 schools—12 percent of California’s public schools—did so, contracting with a total of forty-five different vendors. The remaining 88 percent of California’s public schools utilized “in-house” staff to prepare meals.
Next, trained nutritionists from the Nutrition Policy Institute determined the quality of vendors’ school lunches by using a modified version of the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), a measure of diet quality that’s used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to determine relationships between diet and health-related outcomes. Vendors with an HEI score above the median vendor score were labeled healthy vendors, while those with below median HEI scores were labeled standard vendors.
For student achievement data, researchers used California’s Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessment, which was the statewide test until 2013-14. STAR was administered to all students in grades two through eleven each spring, and covered the four core subject areas as well as a set of end-of-course high school exams. Researchers used these data to create a single composite test score for each year and each school grade.
After controlling for various factors, results show that contracting with a healthy vendor increased student test scores by .03 to .04 standard deviations on average relative to in-school meal preparation. In laymen’s terms, that's a boost of about 4 percentile points. The findings also show modest evidence of larger effects for economically disadvantaged students than for non-disadvantaged students. Healthy cafeteria vendors did not cost dramatically more than in-house preparation. Researchers also found that switching from in-house meal prep to a healthy lunch vendor would raise a student’s test score by 0.1 standard deviations for only $258 per year. By comparison, the Tennessee STAR experiment—which reduced class size in grades K-3—cost $1,368 per year to raise a student’s test score by the same amount.
Aside from increased student achievement and low cost, the report offers a few additional data points. First, it found no evidence that hiring a vendor to serve healthier meals led to a change in the number of lunches sold. Second, healthy meal vendors did not reduce the percentage of students who are overweight, although the researchers note that “a longer time period may be necessary to observe improvements in health.” For schools looking to increase student achievement without spending a fortune, investing in healthy meals seems like a cost-effective solution.
SOURCE: Michael L. Anderson, Justin Gallagher, Elizabeth Ramirez Ritchie, “School Lunch Quality and Academic Performance,” National Bureau of Economic Research (April 2017).
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute is releasing a first-of-its-kind statewide analysis of interdistrict open enrollment. Using anonymous student-level data, Ohio State University professor Stéphane Lavertu and Deven Carlson of the University of Oklahoma examined the background characteristics of open enrollees along with their academic outcomes as gauged by state exams and graduation rates.
We invite you to an important discussion of this widespread but often-overlooked means of school choice in the Buckeye State. The researchers will discuss their findings and a panel of education experts will discuss the implications of the report. The discussion will focus on the benefits and challenges of the policy; how it impacts the families, students, and districts involved; and how Ohio policy makers might strengthen open enrollment policies in the future.
Tuesday June 6, 2017
8:30 - 9:45 am
Chase Tower
100 East Broad Street
Sixth Floor - Conference Room B
Columbus, OH 43215
Seating is limited so please register today.
PRESENTER
Deven Carlson
University of Oklahoma
Report co-author
PANELISTS
Tina Thomas-Manning
Superintendent
Reynoldsburg City Schools
Geno Thomas
Superintendent
Lowellville Local Schools
Gadah Hamad
Central Ohio parent utilizing open enrollment
MODERATOR
Chad Aldis
Vice President for Ohio Policy and Advocacy
Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Back in February, U.S. News and World Report named Massachusetts the top state in its Best States rankings. Though the Bay State has plenty else going for it, part of its triumph is based on educational success—and on that dimension it’s no secret that Massachusetts students have recently excelled on both the national and international stages.
Perhaps, therefore, we ought not be too surprised that one of Ohio’s latest Common Core repeal attempts would replace those “national” standards with Massachusetts’s pre-2010 academic content standards. The bill’s sponsor has argued that the Bay State’s old standards are in Ohio’s current best interest because, while teaching them, Massachusetts moved from “modestly performing” to best in class. In recent testimony, he called them “excellent” and “proven” and argued that this change is necessary because Ohio’s education ranking has “plummeted” (which, for the record, is a misunderstanding of the data). The implication is that by adopting Massachusetts’ old standards, Ohio will place itself on the road to dominating the education sphere.
But is that true? Were Ohio to adopt the old Massachusetts standards, can we expect Massachusetts-style academic results?
Brief but apt digression: let’s turn to the favorite subject of nearly every Buckeye—football. Last year, the Cleveland Browns won just one game, yet another terrible season for the league’s most tortured franchise. The New England Patriots, on the other hand, won 14 of their 16 regular season games and pulled off the biggest comeback in Super Bowl history. Put simply, when people talked about the Browns in 2016, they wondered if they were the worst team ever; when they spoke about the Patriots, they wondered if they were the best franchise ever.
The Browns’ management knows it has work to do. In undertaking the Herculean task of turning around the franchise, its leaders would do well to model themselves after the Patriots (except for that whole cheating thing). But following the Patriots’ example is a lot more complicated than just Xeroxing their playbook. That playbook is certainly full of excellent plans and details. But copying just one aspect of the Patriots’ organization and ignoring the rest, including the challenges of implementation and execution will never take the Browns to the same level as the Patriots.
The same is true for states and their academic standards. Massachusetts’ pre-2010 standards—its “playbook,” so to speak—were undoubtedly fine. But the success that Massachusetts experienced didn’t happen solely because of its standards. A host of other policies and reforms shaped the Bay State into an education powerhouse.
Massachusetts’ standards were aligned to rigorous assessments
During previous repeal attempts in Ohio, Common Core opponents brought in Sandra Stotsky to testify. Stotsky is often asked to testify because of her role on Common Core’s Validation Committee. But she also worked in Massachusetts’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education from 1999 to 2003 and is legitimately credited with leading the standards development process.
In a 2016 piece, Stotsky argued that states should replace Common Core with Massachusetts’s standards, in which she takes huge pride (and pride of authorship). But while reviewing why the Bay State has been so successful, even Stotsky acknowledged that it wasn’t just the improved academic standards for schools that altered the education landscape; the state also “developed a high-quality test” that was “related to authentic college readiness.” Specifically, she referenced a report that found that performance on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) was related not only to the type of college that students enrolled in after graduation, but also to how much remedial coursework they needed. With results like that, it’s unsurprising that MCAS was considered “best in class” for state assessments. But it’s also worth noting that these outcomes likely wouldn’t have happened if MCAS had not been closely aligned with the state’s academic standards.
It’s futile to champion standards that outline what content students must learn, to spend hours and hours teaching that content, and then turn around and assess students with an unaligned test. Massachusetts students rose to the challenge of their state’s assessments because they were tested on standards they were taught during the year—and they ultimately had to pass the test to earn diplomas. Under House Bill 176, however, Buckeye students won’t have that chance, as the legislation says Ohio should import Massachusetts standards but assess students on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Madness.
Massachusetts set and maintained rigorous graduation requirements
Amongst its many provisions, HB 176 revises Ohio law to grant a diploma to anybody who “has successfully completed the curriculum in any high school or the individualized education program developed for that person by any high school.” This means that high school exit exams (like today’s End-Of-Course exams or yesterday’s OGTs) will no longer be a deciding factor in whether or not kids graduate. This is the complete opposite of what Massachusetts did: During the days of pre-Common Core MCAS assessments, all high school seniors were required to pass them (or take an approved and rigorous alternate path) in order to graduate
In fact, Massachusetts’s graduation requirements are more similar to current Ohio requirements than to those proposed under HB 176. Ohio’s current law allows students to earn diplomas in one of three ways:[1]
1) by passing end-of-course exams
2) by earning a remediation-free score in English language arts and mathematics on a nationally recognized college admission exam
3) by earning an industry-recognized credential and demonstrating workforce readiness
In Massachusetts, students can earn one of three certificates to graduate:
1) the competency determination certificate, which is awarded based on passing MCAS scores
2) the certificate of mastery, which is awarded based on passing MCAS scores and additional accomplishments.
3) the certificate of occupational proficiency, which is based on successful completion of a training program in a particular trade or professional skill area
Massachusetts has even weathered the dire warnings that Ohio lawmakers are currently panicking over regarding the “graduation apocalypse.” Paul Reville, the Bay State’s former Secretary of Education and a key player in its education reforms, has said that despite fears that the MCAS expectations were too steep, “the standards we set proved to be attainable for the overwhelming majority of students.” Massachusetts students benefited in the long run from policymakers who had enough confidence in them to maintain high standards. Ohio students deserve the same courage from their lawmakers.
Massachusetts committed to comprehensive school reform
The development of Massachusetts’s stellar state standards and of MCAS was made possible by the Massachusetts Education Reform Law of 1993. This law is often referenced in regard to standards, assessments, and accountability, but it also included a host of other reforms—including changes aimed at vocational education, charter schools, school budgeting and accounting, district hiring authority, and the use of technology. The bill also poured hundreds of millions more dollars into schools and tackled funding reform. Stotsky has been vocal in saying that the changes to the teacher licensing system were just as instrumental to the “Massachusetts education miracle” as high standards and assessments for students. She contends that policymakers must also revamp teacher licensure if they’re serious about stronger pupil achievement.
What’s most interesting about all of this is that the majority of issues Massachusetts addressed in its 1993 law are issues that Ohio faces today. Teacher licensure needs work. There’s plenty of room to improve the quality of our charter sector. Our school funding system needs an overhaul. The majority of these concerns aren’t addressed in HB 176 and those that are—like teacher evaluation—are addressed in an opposite manner than Massachusetts’ example.
***
There’s nothing wrong with Ohio policymakers wanting to model the Buckeye State’s K-12 sector on that of Massachusetts. But cherry-picking a single reform and acting as though it will help us reach the same achievement heights without the profound systemic changes that accompanied that reform instills false hope. It’s actually deceitful. It takes advantage of Massachusetts’s reputation and promises the same results without implementing 95 percent of the reforms that propelled the Bay State to the top. Even worse, it undoes years of Massachusetts-like reforms that are already in place in Ohio. The Cleveland Browns aren’t going to win a Super Bowl by stealing the Patriots’ playbook—and Ohio isn’t going to dethrone Massachusetts by Xeroxing its old standards. If we admire Massachusetts enough to adopt its standards, then we must also admit that it’s not just its standards that we need.
[1] Ohio also has honors diplomas that acknowledge various types of accomplishments beyond what’s required.
NOTES: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute occasionally publishes guest commentaries on its blogs. The views expressed by guest authors do not necessarily reflect those of Fordham.
This piece was originally published on the blog of the Ohio STEM Learning Network and is reposted with kind permission from the author.
Throughout the three weeks that span the end of May and the beginning of June, students all over Ohio will be donning an unflattering tasseled mortarboard cap and a polyester gown, lining up in alphabetical order, and trying to remember all the words of their soon-to-be alma mater’s song. They will be a bit apprehensive, somewhat self-conscious, and a tad more anxious than usual. They’ve practiced this drill two or three times and generally know where they are supposed to go and when they sit and stand, but the gravity of the circumstance has them a little on edge.
Soon, they will walk across the stage, receive a diploma, shake a hand, and move on. It all seems easy enough and has been done 100,000 times before, but there’s always a moment or two of hesitation. It’s the thin line between saying what you are going to do and knowing what you are going to do that catches them off guard. A thousand questions run through their collective minds – Am I prepared? Did I pass Spanish? Does the tassel go on the right or the left? The questions are certainly valid and most will get answered in due time, but the one that is most important is the first: Am I prepared? It’s a big question for a lot of reasons, but on graduation day it is underlined, bold and italicized: Am I prepared…for the rest of my life?
A little more than 10 years ago, all the discussion in education circles in Columbus focused on the “Ohio Core” legislation proposed by then Republican Governor Taft’s administration. Thomas Friedman surfaced the quiet fears of middle class America with The World is Flat. Published a couple of years earlier, the political climate and fear of globalization was palpable, especially in Ohio, as our manufacturing base was slipping and our education levels were sliding.
The Core required students to take (and pass) three years of science and four years of mathematics in order to complete high school requirements for graduation. The intent, at the time, was to raise standards and accountability so that Ohio’s students would be prepared to be competitive in a global economy. The thought, at the time, was that students would need some education beyond high school to effectively contribute to society.
While many of the arguments focused on the “what” of the core, very few questioned the “why.” Preparing kids to be successful in the 21st Century was a no-brainer. One of the big sticking points was the requirement of Algebra II – long thought of as a gatekeeper for college entrance and success. After countless negotiations with administrators, educators, unions and policy wonks, the Core passed. In a sympathetic gesture, schools and districts were granted what amounted to a 10-year runway to ramp up and prepare for what most schools in Ohio were already doing – providing a quality education.
Slow forward to today—10 years has come and gone. As we creep toward the end of the runway, a small number of the schools and districts are still stuck on the tarmac, waiting for clearance to stay in 2006. Frantic calls to the statehouse have set off alarm bells across the state. The schools are demanding more time. The districts are screaming for more resources. The dire warnings are clear: if the 10-year new graduation requirements are activated, thousands of kids might possibly crash and burn.
Luckily for them, their SOS has been heard. Well-meaning bureaucrats are lining up like a bucket brigade to douse the fire and put an end to this catastrophe. Relief will be granted in the form of local control. Higher expectations for students and accountability for schools all across the state will be abandoned, and, thankfully, no one will get hurt (for now). Students will once again be eligible to graduate from high school based on rigid non-academic requirements such as attendance. In Ohio, a high school diploma means they came, therefore, they learned (we hope).
To the casual observer, the path forward the state is taking might make perfect sense. Kicking the decision-making down to the 4,300 local schools allows for plausible deniability. No one wants to see kids fail. No one. High school dropout rates are already appalling. Statistically, kids without diplomas tend to face some future horrific data points: higher levels of unemployment, drug use, and incarceration – the list of bad goes on and on. However, the idea of giving a kid a meaningless diploma is just as damaging – at best, it’s indulgent; at worst, it’s a breach of trust.
Even though the political climate has changed dramatically since the Core was passed, our responsibility to students hasn’t. At the risk of sounding like a left leaning liberal (currently out of vogue), one of the underlining values of the Core was ensuring equity and access to meaningful coursework for all kids. Without the opportunity to take classes that will get you into college, too many kids, mostly in poor rural and urban areas, are locked out of the game before it even begins. In 2017, it seems almost unimaginable that we would consider denying our most vulnerable population access to high quality… (never mind).
Protectionism may seem like a good policy in the short term, but handing out cheap credit is the formula for a meltdown (see: Financial Crisis). At the risk of sounding like a right leaning fiscal conservative (also out of vogue), if the taxpayers are going to invest millions of dollars into the education system, the high school diploma needs to be a highly regarded security, not a worthless paper certificate. Denying the rapidly accelerating education levels of students in places such as Singapore, China, India, and ____________ (insert country of choice here) is like ignoring climate change (ok, so maybe this isn’t such a great example). The facts, alternative or real, are that the basic math of America lowering standards while the rest of the world is increasing them (Hello, Calculus!) won’t add up to America being great again anytime soon. Worse – it puts our kids at risk on a global scale.
But the most important issue at stake here isn’t just academic – it’s a matter of trust. High school graduation is a milestone that we, the adults, created. We are the ones who sign the paper, file the documents, and stamp the transcript. In the end, we, the adults, are responsible for setting the bar – but the students are the ones who will ultimately be held accountable for the result.
For students, what’s “next” after high school can take many shapes and forms – it might be a job, enrollment in college, an apprenticeship, or even an enlistment to serve our country. But, as the adults in the room, we should never mistake what’s next for what’s always. Choices made at 17 should not be life sentences without parole. All kids are “gifted” when it comes to changing their mind. It’s our responsibility to ensure they have all the skills necessary to adapt to wherever their journey takes them. We can debate the merits of statistics versus algebra, but we would be hard pressed to defend complacency. With each passing year, the economy demands more and our kids deserve better.
In a week, maybe two, a small box will unceremoniously show up on my desk. Inside, there will be 100+ diplomas from the Metro Early College High School, a small liberal arts STEM school in Columbus. Each piece of paper within the box is in need of a signature –mine – the Board President Some may consider this an onerous task, but I think of it as the most important two hours of my year. Staring down at names of kids I mostly don’t recognize, I’ll be a bit apprehensive, somewhat self-conscious, and a tad more anxious than usual. I’ve done this drill two or three times in the past and generally know where my name is supposed to go, but the gravity of the circumstance has me a little on edge. I know the world is flat, but that doesn’t make it even. With one stroke of a pen, school board presidents all around our state are about to let loose tens of thousands of Ohio’s kids to the rest of the world. Are they prepared?
David Burns is the Director of Battelle STEM Innovation Networks.
