Article

How money buys education "research"

The Center for American Progress (CAP), which bills itself as a being dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action, recently produced a report titled "Charting New Territory: Tapping Charter Schools to Turn Around The Nation’s Dropout Factories"

The report argues for a more prominent role for charter operators in turning around perennially low-performing high schools. Among its recommendations

the report posits that five steps might improve the likelihood of successful CMO-district partnerships (all of which strengthen the CMO’s position in the district):
1) maximizing theCMO’s autonomy over staffing, budget, curricula, operations, and pedagogy;
2) staffing turnaround schools through creative agreements among education entrepreneurs, unions, charter operators, districts, and states, such as developing thin union contracts;
3) ensuring district financial support for turnaround schools;
4) relaxing state and district administrative regulations around staffing, funding, and school operations; and
5) cultivating public will for such partnerships.

At this point, you might be wondering why a progressive think tank is advocating such right wing policies that have been proven to be unsuccessful. The answer is actually quite simple to descern, and can be found on the very first page of this CAP report.

Paid for by the conservative corporate education reform outfit - the Eli Broad Foundation.

The National Education Policy Center has just released their analysis of this report, and they don't have kind things to say about this Broad funded report.

The report bases the majority of its findings and conclusions on conversations with charter school operators—including those that have not yet engaged in turnaround work—and with school district staff, researchers, and education reformers or consultants. Interview respondents included one professor of educational policy, one researcher from the Center on ReinventingPublic Education, five reformers or consultants from reform organizations or think tanks that advocate for market-based education policies, and three district administrators who were associated with their districts’ charter school partnerships.

Secondarily, the report cites evidence from the popular media, blogs, foundation reports, non-peer reviewed literature, charter operators’ external relations materials, and ideologically identifiable think tanks.

Beyond these citations, the report routinely offers a range of unsubstantiated claims that are not supported by any evidence or that ignore existing evidence to the contrary.

At the same time, no theoretical or substantive rationale behind the report’s sources of evidence is provided to justify why the particular interview respondents or literature sources were selected or how their data were evaluated. The result is a collection of weakly supported claims based on an unsystematic, unsophisticated interpretation of the knowledge base on school turnarounds, charter schools, and charter management organizations.

This is what millions of dollars can buy you. Research and recommendations that lack intellectual rigor. Designed to further corporate education reform agendas at the expense of public education, and the possibility of real reforms and changes that would make a difference to the quality of education students receive.

View REVIEW OF CHARTING NEW TERRITORY

Simple facts about Issue 2 (SB 5)

From our mailbag, some simple facts about Issue 2 (Senate Bill 5):

  • SB 5 weakens collective bargaining rights for police officers, teachers, nurses and prison guards. It takes away their ability to negotiate for health care, retirement, and sick time.
  • It makes our communities less safe because police officers and firefighters could lose their ability to negotiate for safer staffing ratios and better equipment.
  • It threatens the quality of our schools. SB 5 prohibits school districts from negotiating with teachers for smaller class sizes.

It's time to repeal Senate Bill 5. Vote no on Issue 2!

What teachers are telling the Governor: Day 3

Day 3 in our on going series of publishing comments provided to the Governor on his request for input on teacher evaluation and merit pay.

Subject: Hmm, how should teachers be paid?

Here's why a merit-based system for teachers has it's flaws:
- Improvements in a student's organization, self-esteem, confidence, social skills, behaviors, etc. are hard to measure.
A teacher may take a challenging social group, and improve things listed above, but still struggle with test scores.
Should they really be penalized for not meeting the test "quota" despite improving a child's life skills?
- Merit-systems have proven to lead to corruption & the abandoning of meaningful lessons for test-taking drills.
Turning a public service into a for-profit business is unfair to the already endless struggles faced by students.
- Who evaluates the teacher? ..The principal? How is there any certainty that he/she will objectively evaluate the teacher free of non-teaching-related criteria?
-Cronyism.
-Competition between teachers who are expected to collaborate for a common good (the student.)
The current process DOES have an evaluation system in place. When teachers perform unsatisfactorily, they can be assigned a "Peer Assistance Review" mentor who observes the struggling/ineffective teacher and provides support & feedback for getting him/her "back on track."

Teachers, like students, each have elements of their personalities & skills that shine above others. If we're adjusting our practices to meet the same performance criteria, how sad that many students will miss out on some of the unique talents that some teachers might be reluctant to share, or that some pioneering teachers might be unwilling to stray from the norm & try new practices.

The fact is, teachers, like a private-sector worker who personally approaches his/her boss about a raise, have already collectively agreed on what they consider a fair wage. Many of the restrictions in SB5 that limit teacher resources & put no limits on class sizes will ultimately make it even more difficult to fulfill whatever criteria is considered. Again, trying to equate successful "bottom-line" business tactics to motivating children with an endless number of variables is definitely NOT in the best interest of the teaching & learning process..
Thanks,

A lot of comments express frustration about fairness and competency of people making education decisions, such as the following

Subject: Idea

Dear Mr. Kasich,
The idea I have about "paying teachers based on performance," is that the system we have in place now works just fine. As a long-term educator with a masters degree and 3 licenses, why shouldn't I make more money than a teacher right out of college with a bachelor's degree? I have put thousands of dollars and years into getting my education and licenses. I should have tenure and job security. I should have a good paycheck and retirement. I should have good benefits now and in my retirement.

What about paying Charter and Private schools based on how they do on the Ohio Achievement Tests? Right, they don't even have to take it, so I think that would be a good place for YOU to start.

Your thoughts on changing our education system are insulting, and just show how little you know about our education system in general. The State of Ohio has the responsibility to educate our children, and our public education system does it the best. Maybe you need to review your responsibilities as a governor and provide more money to our public education system that is doing well; and would do even better if half of our money wasn't dumped into Private and Chartered schools.

Subject: Ideas for New Pay System

Remove ALL politicans from making ANY of the decisions for pay. Policitians have already made a mockery of the teaching profession and have absolutely shown no respect for educators. Obviously the policitians who voted for this nonsense have never taught one minute otherwise they would understand their are way to many variables to even suggest merit.

If this nonsense continues, ONLY educators should make the decision NOT policitans.

Finally for today, there are one or two comments that are supportive of the governor's efforts, even if their suggestions are, shall we say, "different"

Subject: Innovative Teacher Salary Idea

Hi Governor Kasich!

Depending on what amount each school district spends per pupil, allow the students $1000 to interview the teachers, and "hire" the one they want. Teachers may present the students with their educational portfolio - past student's test scores, how the teacher sets up the class, what the teacher's expectations of the student are, etc. The students then put all their money into the pot for that teacher, and if they reach their goals for the year - AYP, test scores, attendance - the teacher get's their students' bonuses. Much like "The Apprentice" with The Donald - the teacher who performs the best gets the best bonus. The students feel ownership of their teacher, and the teacher only gets beyond their base salary for bringing their class to victory. Also, the best teachers can take more than just 24 students - up to 50 students - thereby increasing their chance for a bonus (but also getting more kids in front of the best teachers) The teachers who are not "hired" by the students, have the smallest class sizes, the least chance at bonuses, and eventually are weeded out.

I think you're awesome! Keep up the good work!

HB 153 Teacher Retesting Provision Facts

House Bill 153 contains a provision for retesting teachers in the lowest ranked 10 percent of all public schools (Sec. 3319.58 below).

Sec. 3319.58
(A) As used in this section, "core subject area" has the same meaning as in section 3319.074 of the Revised Code.

(B) Each year, the board of education of each city, exempted village, and local school district, governing authority of each community school established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code, and governing body of each STEM school established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code with a building ranked in the lowest ten per cent of all public school buildings according to performance index score, under section 3302.21 of the Revised Code, shall require each classroom teacher teaching in a core subject area in such a building to register for and take all written examinations prescribed by the state board of education for licensure to teach that core subject area and the grade level to which the teacher is assigned under section 3319.22 of the Revised Code. However, if a teacher who takes a prescribed examination under this division passes that examination and provides proof of that passage to the teacher's employer, the teacher shall not be required to take the examination again for three years, regardless of the performance index score ranking of the building in which the teacher teaches. No teacher shall be responsible for the cost of taking an examination under this division.

(C) Each district board of education, each community school governing authority, and each STEM school governing body may use the results of a teacher's examinations required under division (B) of this section in developing and revising professional development plans and in deciding whether or not to continue employing the teacher in accordance with the provisions of this chapter or Chapter 3314. or 3326. of the Revised Code.

However, no decision to terminate or not to renew a teacher's employment contract shall be made solely on the basis of the results of a teacher's examination under this section until and unless the teacher has not attained a passing score on the same required examination for at least three consecutive administrations of that examination.

The Facts:

  • According to ODE, this law will not take effect until the 2012-2013 school year because the ranking system to determine the lowest 10% of districts is not required to be in place until September 2012.
  • Under 3319.074, the core subject areas are defined as follows:
    “Core subject area” means reading and English language arts, mathematics, science, foreign language, government, economics, fine arts, history, and geography.
  • The “current examinations prescribed by the state board of education for licensure to teach that core subject area” are:
    a) Praxis II content exam(s) AND Principles of Learning and Teaching for all content areas except world languages
    b) American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL/LTI) exams (2) for world languages AND Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching
    c) Information about these exams and links to the testing companies can be found at the ODE website here.
  • Every teacher would have to take a minimum of two exams
  • There are only seven Praxis II testing dates per year, and not all tests are administered on all dates. Certain tests are only offered three or four times per year. It may take multiple days for teachers to take all required tests.
  • Tests are administered primarily via paper and pencil at testing sites throughout the state. Some tests are moving to computer-based administration, but still must be taken at a designated testing center. Testing sites would likely not be able to handle the thousands of teachers who would be required to take tests beginning in 2012.
  • Fees for taking the Praxis exams are as follows:
    a) $50 registration fee charged once per testing year
    b) Praxis II computer-based tests range from $50-150 per test
    c) Praxis II paper-delivered tests range from $65-90 with most being $80
    d) The average cost for a teacher taking ONE content test and the Principles of Learning and Teaching is $230. Teachers with multiple certificates/licenses teaching in more than one core area will cost more.
    e) World language teachers will have to take the Praxis II PLT ($50 registration + $90 test = $140) in addition to the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview ($134) and Writing Proficiency Test ($65) for a total of $339
  • By using this year’s performance index scores and identifying the lowest 10% of buildings and then identifying teachers in those buildings who taught in the core areas last year, some sources estimate that over 6,000 teachers would need to be retested.
  • By law, teachers are not responsible for the cost of taking these exams, so districts in the lowest 10% will be put under the additional financial burden or retesting their teachers.

This new law is bad because...

  • Requiring teachers in core subjects in the lowest 10% of buildings to be retested places a huge financial burden on districts already struggling with budget cuts in these tough economic times.
  • Retesting teachers wastes planning and preparation time and takes the focus off of the classroom and students when we need to focus on the essentials-- a high quality education for all Ohio students.
  • Testing teachers does not help them improve their performance. Ongoing formative feedback that addresses the complexities of the teaching profession and individualized support allows teachers to improve their performance.
  • The tests required for licensure are not designed to diagnose problems teaching performance and do not reflect the complexity of interacting with diverse students. They are only valid to measure knowledge of specific subjects that new K–12 educators will teach, as well as general and subject-specific teaching skills and knowledge.
  • Requiring that all teachers in core areas be tested in identified buildings is unfair. Master Teachers, National Board Certified teachers and other teachers who have demonstrated practice at an advanced or accomplished level would be forced to take the tests by law. And, teachers who were never required to take these exams for certification or licensure will now be forced to take them by law.
  • Testing centers will not be able to handle the huge increase in the number of test-takers this law requires.
  • This retesting provision drains money away from districts and gives it to large testing corporations.

Due process protects you

A retired teacher sent this short note to us about the dangers of SB5 removing due process protections. Yet andother reason why SB5 is unfair.

I began my teaching career when collective bargaining did not exist in Ohio. I witnessed a situation where an excellent teacher (later Maine teacher of the year) was accused by a student of an inappropriate action. The student was under intensive psychiatric care at the time. Without (or even with) witnesses, this 10 year teacher was given the choice to resign or be fired. No hearing or due process was legally required without collective bargaining. Every colleague was confidant that the accusation was groundless. With no options, this professional moved on, at great loss to our profession.

Without due process rights anyone can find themselves in this same situation because of an argument with the principal, because of age or health concerns, or because of assigning a student a grade that disagrees with a parent's assessment. Negotiating working conditions, and not just salary, improves our professional contributions, improves our advocacy for students, and improves our health and safety on the job, as well as the health and safety of our students.

Kim Cellar
Retired teacher

If you have a story or thought to share, drop us a line at admin@jointhefuture.org

November 2011 School levies and issues

Here's the list of school levies and issues from around the state that will appear on ballots this November 8th, 2011.

County School District New/Renewal
Adams Adams County/Ohio Valley LSD N
Allen Bath LSD R
Allen Perry LSD R
Allen Perry LSD  
Allen Shawnee LSD R
Allen Spencerville LSD R
Ashland Ashland CSD R
Ashland Hillsdale LSD R
Ashtabula Ashtabula Area CSD R
Ashtabula Geneva Area CSD N
Ashtabula Grand Valley LSD N
Auglaize Minster LSD R
Belmont Bellaire CSD LSD R
Belmont Bellaire CSD LSD N
Butler Fairfield CSD N
Butler Lakota LSD N
Clark Northwestern LSD R
Clark Tecumseh LSD R
Clermont West Clermont LSD N
Clinton Blanchester LSD N
Clinton Wilmington CSD R
Columbiana United LSD N
Coshocton Coshocton CSD R
Crawford Wynford LSD N
Cuyahoga Bedford CSD N
Cuyahoga Berea CSD N
Cuyahoga Cleveland Heights-University Heights CSD N
Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Heights LSD N
Cuyahoga Euclid CSD N
Cuyahoga Garfield Heights CSD N
Cuyahoga Independence LSD R
Cuyahoga North Royalton CSD R
Cuyahoga Olmsted Falls CSD N
Cuyahoga Orange CSD N
Cuyahoga Strongsville CSD R
Darke Greenville CSD N
Defiance Ayersville LSD R
Delaware Buckeye Valley LSD N
Delaware Delaware CSD N
Erie Vermilion LSD N
Fairfield Fairfield Union LSD R
Fairfield Lancaster CSD N
Fairfield Walnut Township LSD R
Franklin Canal Winchester LSD R
Franklin Dublin CSD N
Franklin Groveport Madison LSD N
Franklin Hilliard CSD N
Franklin Westerville CSD N
Fulton Evergreen LSD N
Fulton Gorham Fayette LSD R
Fulton Pike-Delta-York LSD R
Geauga Cardinal LSD N
Geauga Newbury LSD R
Geauga West Geauga LSD N
Greene Beavercreek CSD N
Greene Greeneview LSD N
Greene Xenia Community CSD N
Guernsey Cambridge CSD N
Guernsey East Guernsey LSD N
Guernsey Rolling Hills LSD R
Hamilton Cincinnati CSD N
Hamilton Madeira CSD N
Hamilton Mt Healthy CSD N
Hamilton Northwest LSD N
Hamilton Three Rivers LSD R
Hardin Ada EVSD N
Hardin Riverdale LSD N
Henry Patrick Henry LSD N
Holmes East Holmes LSD N
Huron Monroeville LSD R
Huron Norwalk CSD R
Jefferson Edison LSD N
Knox East Knox LSD N
Knox Fredericktown LSD ?
Knox Mount Vernon CSD R
Lake Fairport Harbor EVSD N
Lake Kirtland LSD N
Lake Riverside LSD N
Lake Wickliffe CSD N
Lake Willoughby-Eastlake CSD N
Licking North Fork LSD N
Licking Northridge LSD ?
Licking Northridge LSD N
Logan Bellefontaine CSD R
Logan Bellefontaine CSD R
Lorain Avon LSD N
Lorain Clearview LSD R
Lorain Lorain County JVSD N
Lorain Lorain CSD N
Lorain North Ridgeville CSD N
Lorain Oberlin CSD N
Lorain Oberlin CSD R
Lucas Maumee CSD N
Lucas Ottawa Hills LSD N
Lucas Washington LSD N
Madison London CSD N
Mahoning Canfield LSD N
Mahoning Western Reserve LSD R
Marion Elgin LSD R
Marion Pleasant LSD R
Marion Ridgedale LSD R
Marion River Valley LSD N
Marion Tri-Rivers JVSD R
Marion Tri-Rivers JVSD N
Medina Black River LSD ?
Medina Black River LSD N
Medina Cloverleaf LSD N
Medina Wadsworth CSD N
Mercer Fort Recovery LSD N
Miami Miami East LSD N
Miami Piqua CSD N
Miami Tipp CSD EVSD R
Monroe Switzerland Of Ohio LSD R
Montgomery Huber Heights CSD N
Montgomery Jefferson Township LSD R
Montgomery Kettering CSD R
Montgomery Mad River LSD N
Montgomery Northmont CSD N
Montgomery Northridge LSD N
Montgomery Vandalia-Butler CSD ?
Montgomery West Carrollton CSD N
Ottawa Benton Carroll Salem LSD N
Ottawa Genoa Area LSD N
Paulding Antwerp LSD R
Pickaway Teays Valley LSD N
Portage Aurora CSD R
Portage Crestwood LSD R
Portage Field LSD N
Portage Streetsboro CSD R
Portage Waterloo LSD N
Preble College Corner N
Preble Tri-County North LSD R
Preble Tri-County North LSD N
Preble Twin Valley Community LSD R
Richland Clear Fork Valley LSD ?
Richland Lexington LSD N
Richland Lucas LSD R
Richland Lucas LSD R
Richland Plymouth-Shiloh LSD R
Richland Shelby CSD R
Sandusky Clyde-Green Springs EVSD N
Sandusky Woodmore LSD N
Seneca Old Fort LSD ?
Seneca Tiffin CSD N
Shelby Botkins LSD N
Stark Canton CSD N
Stark Lake LSD N
Stark Minerva LSD R
Stark Osnaburg LSD N
Stark Sandy Valley LSD R
Summit Akron CSD N
Summit Barberton CSD N
Summit Copley-Fairlawn CSD R
Summit Nordonia Hills CSD N
Summit Norton CSD R
Summit Stow-Munroe Falls CSD N
Summit Woodridge LSD N
Trumbull Howland LSD N
Trumbull Lakeview LSD R
Trumbull Weathersfield LSD N
Tuscarawas Dover CSD N
Tuscarawas New Philadelphia CSD R
Tuscarawas Strasburg-Franklin LSD R
Union North Union LSD R
Van Wert Crestview LSD R
Van Wert Crestview LSD R
Warren Carlisle LSD N
Warren Lebanon CSD N
Warren Little Miami LSD N
Washington Warren LSD N
Williams Bryan CSD R
Williams Bryan CSD N
Williams Edon-Northwest LSD ?
Williams Montpelier EVSD N
Williams Stryker LSD N
Wood Lake LSD N