Freedom School children march against budget cuts

We received this yesterday from the Children's Defense Fund, and wanted to share it with our readers. Civic engagement to improve the lives of students is at the heart of what we care about.

Nearly 400 children participating in eight Children’s Defense Fund Freedom Schools sites in Central Ohio held a “teach-in” and marched to the Statehouse to highlight the dangers from proposed federal budget cuts to education. The children, ages 5-18, joined thousands of others from 151 Freedom Schools locations in 87 cities and 27 states as part of a “National Day of Social Action.”

The Freedom Schools college “servant leaders” who teach and mentor the children enrolled in these summer schools hosted the “teach-in” for community leaders, policymakers, advocates, and parents to discuss possible federal budget cuts that pose a huge threat to education and great harm to children. Some proposals, like the Ryan budget passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in April, would roll back education funding to 2008 levels, cut Pell grants by as much as $126 billion (more than $800 per grant), and slash $770 billion from health care funding that protects one in three children – while giving $4.2 trillion in tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires and big corporations. And such cuts would come on top of the state and local cuts that have already hurt public education.

During the event held at Broad Street United Methodist Church, college servant leaders and children shared stories about how education has shaped their lives and led participants to write letters to their federal lawmakers urging them to protect children from education budget cuts and invest in children to strengthen the nation’s economic future.

Lamar Graham, 25, of Columbus, is a servant leader intern at Urban Resurrection CDC's Freedom School. Graham was in foster care for eight years and said he was placed with “too many families to count,” but that the experiences gave him an “inner strength to better not only my life, but others’.” He is a graduate of Wilberforce University and Columbus State Community College. Graham said, "I never would have been able to go to college without Pell grants. Pell grants saved me from taking out many student loans. If you cut educational funding, it's like the foundation: if there is no foundation, the house can't stand."

For more information on the CDF Freedom Schools program visit www.freedomschools.org

Guest Post: A Comprehensive Union

A guest post by Robert Barkley, Jr., Retired Executive Director, Ohio Education Association, Author: Quality in Education: A Primer for Collaborative Visionary Educational Leaders and Leadership In Education: A Handbook for School Superintendents and Teacher Union Presidents, Worthington, Ohio – rbarkle@columbus.rr.com

As employee organizations, whether one prefers the term association or union, come under severe attack from many angles, it is time once again to reflect upon exactly what is our duty. Or, to put it in terms I discovered as I worked for several years with a coalition of management and labor, what would it mean to be a “comprehensive union.”

My work in that period of studying such collaboration led me to understand the parallel need for transforming our local associations/unions in tandem with the changes we seek in the school districts with which, and in which, we work.

Unions, like all organizations, go through life cycles. We are at a time in education where the pure trade unionist approach to representing education employees is at least understandable to most, and still appealing to many. Elsewhere this acceptance of even a traditional role for unions is fragile at best. There is a great deal of antipathy toward a union in any form, even among the union's own membership.

Against a backdrop of serious threats to public education as an institution, unions must walk a difficult line between the traditional expectations of many veteran school employees about what their union should be, internal union critics, and the changing expectations represented by many of those entering teaching today. In this climate, those who purport to represent school employees find themselves needing a more comprehensive perspective about what they offer.

Typically employee organizations seek, or should seek, to attend to three aspects of our members work: 1) the labor they engage in, 2) the contribution that labor makes to the community, and 3) the performance level attributed to those efforts.

Consistent with those three aspects a truly comprehensive union must engage in four distinct but interdependent functions. First, the traditional union role has not, probably should not, and cannot go away. At this point in its evolution, the comprehensive union needs to maintain its historic role. But what is that role? From conversations with many members, it seems to boil down to protecting members from the vicissitudes of the systems in which they work. More specifically it is protection from the consequences of out-dated, inadequate, and/or dysfunctional systems.

The second historical and essential role for our organizations is to assure that our members are appropriately rewarded for their labor, contributions, and performance. [Yes, there’s that word performance mixed in with setting compensation. It’s real and must be addressed both intelligently and fairly.]

This leads to the third role for a comprehensive union -- accepting responsibility, in collaboration with others, for the design and continuous improvement of the systems in which our members work. It's not a matter of giving up one for the other. It's a matter of accepting simultaneously the responsibility for protection, system redesign, and accountability.

For decades, designing the systems in which people work has been thought of as the purview of management. In fact, based upon the wording of many "management rights" clauses in bargained contracts, designing the systems and maintaining the quality of work has been essentially off-limits to unions. This was naïve from the beginning and certainly is today.

If one asks members or potential members if they would join for protection, many say yes. Ask them if they would join and support efforts to improve the system in ways that would reduce the need for protection, the response is usually some mix of three replies. One, they don't believe the need for protection would ever go away completely. Two, they never thought of the union as doing that sort of thing. And three, they like the idea, but they're worried that doing the second would compromise doing the first.

Taking on these dual challenges is further than many are ready to go. Yet there appears to be an even more attractive prospect for a transformation to comprehensive unionism. Once fundamental survival needs are met, the greatest service anyone can give workers is the fourth aspect of a comprehensive employee organization: an opportunity for its members to realize joy and satisfaction in their daily work.

I opened by suggesting that all organizations have life cycles. Moving from one established life cycle to the next is never easy nor is the road clear. We are often sustaining one cycle while designing the next. We find ourselves in that dilemma today -- torn between the continuing need for protection and the growing responsibility for improving the system. I have found this concept of the comprehensive union useful in conducting the reflection and dialogue necessary to grow and learn.

The Ohio voucher boondoggle

With the passage of the state budget, expansion of Ohio's voucher program is set to explode, sucking dollars from schools that desperately need every penny they have, causing a viscous circle of funding and performance problems.

Ramping from 14,000 vouchers to 30,000 in the coming school year and then skyward to 60,000 the year after, provides the potential to drain up to $300,000,000 (up from over $71.6 million in 2010) from public schools in the state, with much of this money flowing to private schools.

The eligibility was also expanded to encompass schools in the lowest 10 percent of all public school buildings by performance index score for two of the last three school years. The change adds 31 more schools to the list of 197 which current qualify.

As a recent article in the Nation points out, this expansion has less to do with so-called "choice" and more to do with the ideological attack on public education, an attack that features the usual host of antagonists

But lately, the push from the Gates, Broad and Walton Foundations for “accountability,” charters and school choice—and in the case of Walton, for vouchers specifically—has morphed into the broader attack on the public school establishment. On the far right, deep-pockets conservatives like members of the Walton (Walmart) family, Patrick Byrne of Overstock.com and Amway heirs Dick and Betsy DeVos and their American Federation for Children (a name obviously designed as a jab at the AFT) are pouring millions into unionbashing politicians and Astroturf voucher PACs. (Betsy DeVos also happens to be the sister of Blackwater’s Erik Prince, who’s probably done more than anyone to privatize the military.)

Unlike liberals like Coons, the Friedmanites seem to have concerns that are less about children and good education than about privatization, small government and the blessings of the free market. Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s pursuit of charters, test-based teacher accountability and programs to shut down “failing” schools plays powerfully to the distrust in the system.

But these aren't the only problems. As testimony by think tank Policy Matters Ohio pointed out, we lack any knowledge of how well students who attend many of these tax payer funded private schools are being educated

In 2010, nearly 5,000 students had enrolled in Cleveland’s Catholic schools using the voucher and 23 of the Diocese’s 29 schools had more than 50 percent voucher enrollment; 16 of them had voucher enrollment of at least 75 percent. These high levels of dependence by religious schools on taxpayer funding are striking and troubling. This dependence also raises the question – at what level of public funding should a private school be held to accountability standards and tools, such as report cards, restructuring, and even closure, to which district and charter schools are increasingly being required to submit?

For this and other reasons, it is important to examine more closely academic performance at Ohio schools that accept vouchers, and the state’s voucher programs have no conclusive performance data to support them. Last year’s state tests showed mixed results for the EdChoice program – according to data from the Ohio Department of Education, for example, voucher students scored better than district counterparts in Columbus, but not as well in Cincinnati and Toledo. In the Cleveland voucher program, district students outperformed voucher students on most state tests last year. The only thorough review of an Ohio voucher program, the six-year study of the Cleveland program mandated by the state and conducted by Indiana University, found no significant advantage for voucher students.

There is a huge push to instill unprecedented "accountability" upon public schools and their teachers, yet private schools that receive massive amounts of tax payer support continue to go unchecked. Why would policy makers seek to create such a two track system if the intent was not to undermine public education in a quest to privatize as much as possible?

It's time that policy makers created a system that was fair and equal for everyone, so parents and tax payers had a full body of knowledge with which to make their choices.

What Studies Say About Teacher Effectiveness

The Education Writers Association has produced a brief on teacher effectiveness, which you can read in full here.

it’s important for journalists and others to understand what is known about the topic so far, and what remains unsettled or unknown. This research brief does not synthesize all the studies in this highly technical field. But it does aim to improve the accuracy and clarity of reporting by exploring what the research says about timely questions surrounding the complex topic of teacher effectiveness.

The brief is organized around several prevailing questions about teacher effectiveness in K-12 education. For each question, we’ve reviewed some of the most-important research, identifying key findings and tension points. (Citations in the text refer to a list of sources in the bibliography.) At the end of each section, we present a bottom-line summary of the research.

Nearly all of the studies cited here rely on the use of student test scores as a proxy for learning, a research practice that remains hotly debated. A full discussion of the value of standardized testing lies outside the scope of this paper, but we begin from the same assumption as many scholars: that standardized tests measure important aspects of student learning, but not the full breadth and depth of what students should know and be able to do.

The brief draws on a review of over 40 specific research studies or research syntheses, as well as interviews with scholars who have used primarily quantitative research methods to analyze the relationships between teachers, their attributes, and student achievement.

Here's a summary of the brief

Are teachers the most important factor affecting student achievement?

It can be said:
Research has shown that the variation in student achievement is predominantly a product of individual and family background characteristics. Of the school factors that have been isolated for study, teachers are probably the most important determinants of how students will perform on standardized tests.

Are value-added estimations reliable or stable?

It can be said:
Value-added models appear to pick up some differences in teacher quality, but they can be influenced by a number of factors, such as the statistical controls selected. They may also be affected by the characteristics of schools and peers. The impact of unmeasured factors in schools, such as principals and choice of curriculum, is less clear.

Does merit pay for teachers produce better student achievement or retain more-effective teachers?

It can be said:
In the United States, merit pay exclusively focused on rewarding teachers whose students produce gains has not been shown to improve student achievement, though some international studies show positive effects. Research has been mixed on comprehensive pay models that incorporate other elements, such as professional development. Scholars are still examining whether such programs might work over time by attracting more effective teachers.

Do students in unionized states do better than students in states without unions?

It can be said:
Students tend to do well in some heavily unionized states, but it isn’t possible to conclude that it is the presence or absence of unions that cause that achievement.

Civic Investment and the 'Skyboxing' of Education

Sadly, the public education your child gets often is only as good as the public education you and your community can afford. When state funding cuts put a popular program or teacher or even a planned building at risk, parents and boosters sometimes are asked to step in, reach out, and come up with money to fill the gap. Depending upon the wealth of the community, parents, boosters, and organizations often can offset some of the lost funding. However, no amount of private capital can replace the public funds and civic support lost through budget cuts.

Of course, not every community is able to raise private funds to help. And the level of need varies from school to school and community to community. A wealthy school district may need only new landscaping. Many districts, however, particularly those with significant populations of low-income families, don’t have enough textbooks or well-trained teachers.

In recent years, we’ve been witnessing the “skyboxing” of American education. Like their socioeconomic peers at ballgames, students in education skyboxes are buffered from realities most students face by their well-appointed educational accommodations: “Need an extra AP program? Right away, sir. Would you like an International Baccalaureate with that?” Meanwhile, the vast majority of students sit in the equivalent of bleacher seats, or they are stuck behind a pillar, squinting to see their teachers in overcrowded classrooms.

[readon2 url="http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/06/24/36riley.h30.html?tkn=SZQFXaFDPGAoclN4rZXeAxL2DJVD5kktPNVy&cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS1"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

Data shows massive and widespread opposition to SB5

These are some truly astonishing numbers released by the We Are Ohio campaign. It details the number of signatures collected in each county, and with a bit of math, the percentage of registered voters that represents. We've sorted the list to show which counties collected the most signatures as a percentage of voters.

Almost a quarter (in some cases more) of all registered voters in 10 or so counties signed the petition - included two of the largest counties in the state - Cuyahoga and Hamilton. We analyzed what turn out might look like in November, and this data can only confirm the worst fears of SB5 supporters - there is massive and widespread opposition to SB5.

County	Total signatures	Total registered voters	Signatures as % registered voters
Lucas	89,610	317,046	28%
Monroe	2,884	10,272	28%
Adams	4,289	18,373	23%
Erie	11,962	53,980	22%
Hamilton	124,879	565,418	22%
Cuyahoga	206,235	978,267	21%
Jackson	4,991	23,283	21%
Mahoning	37,680	181,759	21%
Noble	1,860	8,814	21%
Coshocton	4,277	21,234	20%
Meigs	3,201	16,042	20%
Vinton	1,792	9,056	20%
Franklin	157,489	811,831	19%
Trumbull	27,846	149,685	19%
Athens	8,984	49,440	18%
Hocking	3,351	18,634	18%
Belmont	8,102	47,834	17%
Gallia	3,395	21,535	16%
Guernsey	4,059	25,810	16%
Lake	25,323	157,732	16%
Lorain	32,996	206,660	16%
Madison	3,857	24,792	16%
Pickaway	5,397	32,751	16%
Ross	7,126	45,332	16%
Scioto	7,534	47,167	16%
Summit	60,002	371,028	16%
Medina	19,260	125,684	15%
Ottawa	4,682	30,395	15%
Pike	2,814	19,120	15%
Sandusky	5,740	39,531	15%
Stark	40,772	267,350	15%
Tuscarawas	9,159	59,920	15%
Ashtabula	9,246	65,801	14%
Crawford	3,988	29,170	14%
Defiance	3,731	26,347	14%
Delaware	17,070	119,690	14%
Fayette	2,268	16,312	14%
Jefferson	7,256	51,116	14%
Seneca	5,328	37,148	14%
Wayne	10,613	75,097	14%
Fairfield	13,813	102,716	13%
Licking	14,708	113,245	13%
Marion	5,485	41,017	13%
Perry	3,186	23,712	13%
Portage	14,393	110,446	13%
Wood	13,045	103,312	13%
Clark	10,883	92,438	12%
Columbiana	8,482	71,043	12%
Lawrence	5,514	47,438	12%
Morgan	1,067	9,240	12%
Muskingum	6,296	54,477	12%
Richland	10,274	87,138	12%
Allen	7,865	69,931	11%
Butler	27,648	240,541	11%
Clermont	14,128	132,696	11%
Fulton	3,496	30,562	11%
Geauga	7,014	65,507	11%
Harrison	1,251	11,266	11%
Henry	2,341	20,582	11%
Huron	3,926	36,993	11%
Knox	4,395	40,304	11%
Montgomery	44,016	385,652	11%
Warren	15,457	135,490	11%
Washington	4,663	42,740	11%
Ashland	3,653	35,768	10%
Brown	3,012	29,579	10%
Carroll	2,040	19,838	10%
Hardin	1,884	18,224	10%
Morrow	2,500	25,986	10%
Paulding	1,361	13,407	10%
Putnam	2,110	24,328	9%
Williams	2,391	25,542	9%
Wyandot	1,334	15,567	9%
Champaign	2,081	26,707	8%
Greene	9,891	116,552	8%
Hancock	4,115	54,834	8%
Miami	5,896	71,894	8%
Preble	2,405	28,323	8%
Union	2,683	34,147	8%
Van Wert	1,729	20,406	8%
Auglaize	2,326	32,800	7%
Clinton	1,783	26,722	7%
Shelby	2,294	31,973	7%
Highland	1,725	27,608	6%
Logan	1,760	30,865	6%
Mercer	1,817	28,609	6%
Holmes	802	17,807	5%
Darke	1,579	35,378	4%
Total	1,297,565	8,037,806	16.1%