A doomsday bill for public ed

Innovation Ohio follow up on the news that the public school privatization bill (HB136) is going to change, with some interesting new analysis on what some of the proposed changes might mean

Huffman admitted that in its current form, HB 136 could create a potential “doomsday scenario” for Ohio’s public schools. He said that estimates of the bill’s cost to public schools—$500 million just to pay for students who already attend private schools, and nearly $1 billion in lost revenue once the bill was fully phased in—were “valid.”

The good news is that Huffman announced that a scaled back version of HB 136 would either be introduced as a new bill or rolled into a new education plan Gov. Kasich is expected to submit next year.

The bad news is that even this “scaled back” version would cost districts up to $76.5 million, effectively doubling the cost of private school vouchers from last year.

And many of Huffman’s proposed changes would still present public schools with massive problems.

Take his proposal to cap the amount of state money any district could lose at $4,500 per student, for example.

Under this proposal, locally raised property taxes would still be sent to private schools. Why? Because the $4,500 per pupil in state money Huffman cites is a phantom figure. Its what a district might get before “deductions” for Charter Schools, Open Enrollment, and other voucher programs. Last year, for example, the state provided public school districts with $6.5 billion—which equated to nearly $3,800 for each of the 1.75 million children in those districts. But after “deductions” for charters, vouchers, and open enrollment, that $3,800 shrunk to roughly $3,200. So if districts get $3,200 per pupil from the state—but could lost up to $4,500 per pupil for private school vouchers—they would still lose money. And that would require the schools to either cut programs or seek more funding from taxpayers through local levies.

You can read the whole piece here.

Teach for America ‘research’ questioned

Recently I exchanged emails with a Teach for America employee in my city. On my last exchange, I tried to press her to answer at least one of my questions.

"Given the choice, would you see a doctor with 5 weeks of training or a certified doctor? A lawyer? An actuary?"

Answering with a ‘yes’ would be absurd. Answering with a ‘no’ would indicate a blatant disrespect for teachers.

Unfortunately this disrespect is exactly what we have going on in our country at this time: a blame-the-teacher mentality that ignores real world issues and concerns.

The TFA employee directed me to the organization's "research" page where TFA claims this: "A large and growing body of independent research shows that Teach For America corps members make as much of an impact on student achievement as veteran teachers."

This claim, based on the "studies" supplied by TFA, is misleading at best and demonstrably false at worst. I read all of the 12 "studies" available on TFA's website, and here is what I found.

[readon2 url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/teach-for-america-research-questioned/2011/12/12/gIQANb40rO_blog.html?wprss=answer-sheet"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

What teachers didn't tell the governor

The Governor's education Czar, Robert Sommers, and his assistant Sarah Dove have finally published their report based upon feedback received via a web form regarding their corporate education reform proposals. The report can be read below.

We don't need to mention how this report lacks any scientific validity, because the reports authors do that for us

This summary is not meant to be a scientific compilation of the information. It is intended, rather, to present the general sentiment of the productive comments received. It is acknowledged that in any particular category, comments were received that would range across the entire spectrum of pros and cons.

It's one of the few honest things said in this highly charged and political document. Despite admitting that the methodology of this study is not sound, almost every single section of this document begins with the phrase "Teachers believe". In many cases what is asserted that teachers believe is not even supported by the actual feedback teachers provided. Earlier in the year, in a 5 part series, we published many of the actual comments teachers provided as input to this process. You can find that series here:

The report concludes with recommendations from a "steering committee". But we're never told who served on that committee, only that

"Robert Sommers, Director of the Governor’s Office of 21st Century Education, and Sarah Dove, Ohio’s Teacher Liaison, assembled a steering committee consisting of a cross-section of teachers representing schools and educators across the state.

When a document presents recommendations, do readers not deserve to know who exactly are making these recommendations, what the process for approving them was, and if there was any dissension?UPDATE: Commitee list is burried at the end of the document in the appendix, with no mention of who each person is, or who they represent.

Furthermore, for a process that had very little stakeholder input at all, this recommendation stood out for its audacity

The Ohio Department of Education must commit to providing increased communications with teachers about new evaluation and compensation models.

Little effort has been expended by the Department of Education in educating teachers on where the state is and where it is headed in the areas of evaluation and compensation. By providing teachers with a “big picture” version of the state’s evaluation framework, the state can lay the groundwork for educated and committed teachers. The Department of Education must reach out and collaborate with key stakeholders to assist with getting the needed communications to teachers and leaders across the state. ODE should develop and implement a strategic communications plan to identify key messages, important milestones and identify who is responsible for sharing information.

We agree, but are left wondering why this wasn't done during the preparation of this document?

At the end of the day however the biggest question we are left with is this, what is the point and purpose of this document from the governor's office? The Department of Education has already released its framework for evaluations. The ESB has worked for 2 years on the details of an evaluation system and local school districts and education associations have been working together on developing systems to meet RttT requirements. This flimsy, unscientific, political document, developed by an unnamed steering committee has added nothing to any of these efforts.

Ohio Evaluation Comp Reform

HB136 is dead, but will return

HB136 is dead. But a watered down version is likely to reappear in the form of another bill, or tucked quietly inside a bigger bill dealing with the new school funding formula. That was the message delivered by it's sponsor Rep Matt Huffman at a news conference yesterday.

Huffman said he'll change the funding mechanism so that no voucher will be worth more than the amount of per-pupil state aid that the home district receives. In a high-wealth district, that could be as little as a few hundred dollars.

"The practical effect is that not a lot of students from that district will use them," he acknowledged.

Huffman also said he'll limit the number of available vouchers to 1 percent of the home district's enrollment, which is roughly how many he expected would participate.

Statewide, that would be up to 17,000 students - far fewer than would have been possible in the original version of the bill.

He also will change the eligibility guidelines, tying them to the income levels that qualify children for state health coverage. And he will eliminate a provision that would have allowed families to spend unused voucher money on private high schools or college.

We'd speculate that it is unlikely that this new framework would appear in a bigger bill dealing with the funding formula. With over 300 school districts continuing to oppose this privatization plan in any form, a funding formula bill having its own issues, is not going to be a welcoming place for a contentious piece of legislation to be tucked inside.

Whatever the final form and function of this privatization proposal, it remains a terrible policy to transfer public monies to private schools at the expense of the majority of students. Even more so in light of recent revelations of ODE's inability to perform its basic oversight and accountability functions of private schools already receiving tax dollars.

School privatization bill under intense pressure

With opposition to the public school privatization bill (HB136) now at record levels, the bill's sponsor, Rep Matt Huffman is looking to make changes

according to GOP sources, Huffman is proposing to scale back the bill in several ways.

He reportedly is proposing to: lower income requirements so fewer students would qualify for a voucher; cap the amount of tax revenues a school district would lose for students transferring to a private school with a voucher; limit the number of students a district could lose to the program to no more than 1 percent of enrollment; and eliminate a provision that would allow parents to deposit any unused voucher money into a college savings account for their child.

As Tom Ash the director of governmental development for BASA notes, it is unlikely to be enough, especially in light of the revelations reported by the Cincinnati Enquirer in depth report over the weekend titled "Voucher program gets little scrutiny".

Six years after Ohio taxpayers began paying private-school tuition for what is now more than 15,000 students, the state is not reporting academic results for about half of them.

State education officials say online access, human error and the independence of private schools all play a role in the lack of state testing results in their annual reports.

Even the Governor's spokesperson admits that this is a troublesome finding. It continues a pattern of weakening public education in the name of "choice" and "competition", but not applying the same standards of transparency and accountability to tax payer funded private schools.

With more and more school districts and education organizations joining the ranks of opposition almost daily now, and reports that the current voucher effort is woefully failing in it's legally mandated transparency requirements, HB136 is a bill that should simply be tabled.

Here's the most recent list of districts and organizations opposing HB136, from OSBA

Akron  City Mapleton  Local
Allen  County  ESC Maplewood  Career  Center
Amanda-­-Clearcreek  Local Mariemont  City
Amherst  Ex  Vill Marietta  City
Arcadia  Local Marion  City
Archbold  Area  Local Marysville  Ex  Vill
Ashland  County-­-West  Holmes  JVSD Maumee  City
Ashtabula  Area  City McDonald  Local
Ashtabula  County  T&C Ctr. Medina  Ci†y
Athens-­-Meigs  ESC Medina  County  ESC
Aurora  City Meigs  Local
Austintown  Local Mentor  Ex  Vill
Ayersville  Local Middletown  City
Barnesville  Ex  Vill Millcreek-­-West  Unity  Local
Bath  Local Mohawk  Local
Bay  Village  City Morgan  Local
Bellbrook-­-Sugarcreek  Local Muskingum  Valley  ESC
Bellefontaine  City Napoleon  Area  City
Belpre  City National  Trail  Local
Benjamin  Logan  Local New  Bremen  Local
Benton-­-Carroll-­-Salem  Local New  Philadelphia  City
Bethel-­-Tate  Local New  Riegel  Local
Big  Walnut  Local Newark  City
Bloom-­-Carroll  Local Newbury  Local
Boardman  Local Newton  Falls  Ex  Vill
Botkins  Local Niles  City
Bowling  Green  City Noble  Local
Bristol  Local Nordonia  Hills  City
Brookfield  Local North  College  Hill  City
Brooklyn  City North  Fork  Local
Brown  County  ESC North  Olmsted  City
Brown  Local  (Carroll) Northeastern  Local
Brunswick  City Northridge  Local
Buckeye  Central  Local Northwest  Ohio  ESC
Buckeye  Local  (Ashtabula) Northwestern  Local
Buckeye  Valley  Local Norton  City
Bucyrus  City Norwood  Local
C-­-Tech  of  Licking  County Oak  Hills  Local
Canfield  Local Oakwood  City
Carey  Ex  Vill Oberlin  City
Cedar  Cliff  Local Olmsted  Falls  City
Centerburg  Local Orange  City
Chagrin  Falls  Ex  Vill Orrville  City
Champion  Local Ottawa-­-Glandorf  Local
Chardon  Local Ottoville  Local
Chillicothe  City Painesville  City
Chippawa  Local Perry-­-Hocking  ESC
Clark  County  ESC Perrysburg  Local
Clark-­-Shawnee  Local Pike-­-Delta-­-York  Local
Clay  Local Port  Clinton  City
Cleveland  Municipal Portsmouth  City
Clinton-­-Massie  Local Preble  County  ESC
Columbia  Local Reading  Community  City
Columbiana  Ex  Vill Revere  Local
Columbus  Grove  Local Rittman  Ex  Vill
Conneaut  Area  City Riverside  Local
Conotton  Valley  Union  Local Ross-­-Pike  ESD
Coshocton  City St.  Henry  Consolidated  Local
Crestview  Local St.  Marys  City
Crestwood  Local Shaker  Heights  Local
Crooksville  Ex  Vill Shawnee  Local
Cuyahoga  Heights  Local Sidney  City
Danville  Local Solon  City
Dayton  City South  Central  Ohio  ESC
Deer  Park  City South  Central  Local
Delaware  City South  Range  Local
Dublin  City South-­-Western    City
East  Guernsey  Local Southeast  Local
East  Holmes  Local Southeastern  Local
East  Knox  Local Southern  Hills  JVSD
Eastern  Local  (Brown) Southern  Local  (Meigs)
Eastern  Local  (Meigs) Southern  Local  (Perry)
Elida  Local Southern  Ohio  ESC
Elyria  City Southington  Local
Euclid  City Southwest  Licking  Local
Fairbanks  Local Spencerville  Local
Fairborn  City Springfield  City
Fairfield  City Springfield  Clark  CTC
Fairfield  Union  Local Springfield  Local  (Lucas)
Fairland  Local Springfield  Local  (Mahoning)
Fairless  Local Steubenville  City
Fairview  Park  City Stow-­-Munroe  Falls  City
Fayetteville-­-Perry  Local Strasburg-­-Franklin  Local
Federal  Hocking  Local Streetsboro  City
Felicity-­-Franklin  Local Strongsville  City
Field  Local Talawanda  City
Finneytown  Local Tecumseh  Local
Firelands  Local Toledo  Public
Forest  Hills  Local Triad  Local
Fort  Frye  Local Tri-­-County  ESC
Franklin  City Tri-­-Village  Local
Franklin  Local Trumbull  County  CTC
Fredericktown  Local Trumbull  County  ESC
Fremont  City Tuscarawas  Valley  Local
Galion  City Tuslaw  Local
Georgetown  Ex  Vill Twinsburg  City
Gibsonburg  Ex  Vill Union  Local
Goshen  Local United  Local
Graham  Local Upper  Arlington  City
Granville  Ex  Vill Upper  Sandusky  Ex  Vill
Green  Local Urbana  City
Greenon  Local Valley  View  Local
Groveport  Madison  Local Vanlue  Local
Hardin-­-Houston  Local Van  Wert  City
Highland  Local Vermilion  Local
Howland  Local Vinton  County  Local
Huntington  Local Wadsworth  City
Independence  Local Wapakoneta  City
Ironton  City Warren  City
Jackson-­-Milton  Local Washington  Local
Jefferson  Area  Local Waterloo  Local
Jefferson  County  ESC Wauseon  Ex  Vill
Jefferson  County  JVS Waverly  City
Jefferson  Local  (Madison) Wayne  County  JVS
Jennings  Local Waynesfield-­-Goshen  Local
Kalida  Local Wellston  City
Kenston  Local Wellsville  Local
Kent  City West  Branch  Local
Keystone  Local West  Carrollton  City
Kirtland  Local Western  Brown  Local
Knox  County  Career  Center Westlake  City
LaBrae  Local Wheelersburg  Local
Lakeview  Local Williamsburg  Local
Lakewood  City Winton  Woods  City
Lawrence  County  JVS Woodridge  Local
Leetonia  Ex  Vill Wooster  City
Liberty  Local Worthington  City
Licking  County  ESC Xenia  Community
Lima  City Yellow  Springs  Local
Lincolnview  Local Youngstown  City
Lisbon  Ex  Vill Zanesville  City
Logan-­-Hocking  Local County-­-wide  Letters  in  Opposition:
Lordstown  Local Lake  County  Superintendents
Loudonville-­-Perrysville  Ex  Vill Lorain  County  Superintendents
Lucas  County  ESC Medina  County  Superintendents
Lynchburg-­-Clay  Local Southern  Ohio  ESC  Center
Manchester  Local Member  District  Superintendents
Trumbull  County  Superintendent's  Assoc.

A difficult year

The Shanker Institute has a very comprehensive look at the year in corporate education reform research. It covers 3 basic areas

  • Charter schools
  • Performance pay
  • Value-added in evaluations

All topics we have covered in some length at JTF. You can view a lot of the research we have brought forward at our document center at SCRIBD.

If 2010 was the year of the bombshell in research in the three “major areas” of market-based education reform – charter schools, performance pay, and value-added in evaluations – then 2011 was the year of the slow, sustained march.

Last year, the landmark Race to the Top program was accompanied by a set of extremely consequential research reports, ranging from the policy-related importance of the first experimental study of teacher-level performance pay (the POINT program in Nashville) and the preliminary report of the $45 million Measures of Effective Teaching project, to the political controversy of the Los Angeles Times’ release of teachers’ scores from their commissioned analysis of Los Angeles testing data.

In 2011, on the other hand, as new schools opened and states and districts went about the hard work of designing and implementing new evaluations compensation systems, the research almost seemed to adapt to the situation. There were few (if any) “milestones,” but rather a steady flow of papers and reports focused on the finer-grained details of actual policy.*

Nevertheless, a review of this year’s research shows that one thing remained constant: Despite all the lofty rhetoric, what we don’t know about these interventions outweighs what we do know by an order of magnitude.

Alas, the piece concludes with much the same problem we have been documenting all year long, the headlong, unreasoned, non collaborative rush to implement corporate education reform policies whose impacts at best are unknown and at worst are highly damaging to student achievement and the public education system

Overall, then, it was a productive research year in the three areas discussed above, and it might have been even more productive but for the fact that, in too many cases, the policy decisions this work could have guided had already been made.

It has been a difficult year for those seeking to defend public education from the plethora of corporate reform policies, and next year is bound to see the continuation of this struggle. But once where there were few voices opposing these damaging policies of privatization, there are now many more.

The corporate education reformers are going to have to work a lot harder and be more accountable than they have ever have.