HB 2 Amendments One More Positive Step. Heavy Lift Remains

The House Education Committee yesterday adopted an omnibus amendment to its charter reform legislation (House Bill 2). Most of the amendments were the charter reform provisions introduced in the Budget Bill (House Bill 64), but there were some meaningful and significant tweaks. I will talk more in depth in a separate post about the omnibus' "high performing charter" definition -- the first we've seen in this recent spate of charter reforms.

For now, though, let's start with the better stuff:

1. Operator Oversight
1. The amendments include one that will post all school-operator contracts at the Ohio Department of Education website. This is a huge step forward. When I was chairman of the Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee of the House Finance Committee, I was stunned that ODE didn't have these contracts because the law didn't require them to have the contracts, even though some operators get as much as 97% of the state revenue to educate kids at charters. This is so basic, yet so important for strong oversight and accountability. 
2. The amendments include one that would have operator report cards listed in the charter school annual report, which is a good tweak of the HB 2 original language. Now we'll know how all three charter entities -- sponsors, schools and operators -- perform. Great for transparency.
3. The amendments require that the schools have independent counsel to negotiate the contracts they sign with operators and sponsors -- a very positive step to safeguard taxpayer dollars. However, the charter legal world is a very tight knit group. Will this essentially serve as the Jamie Callendar Permanent Employment Act? Or will it allow some independence from his dominance in this area? We'll see.
4. Financial and enrollment reports have to be sent to the operator too, not just sponsor and school. I am still perplexed why they wouldn't be sent to ODE since it's public money we're talking about here. 
2. Transparency
1. In addition to the posting of operator contracts, the amendments say that all charter governing board members shall be listed on school websites, with their addresses and contact information sent to ODE and sponsors. This is another step forward. Again, though, for 16 years they haven't been required to do this. Amazing.
2. ODE approves financial plans for schools and has contracts with all sponsors, even previously grandfathered entities. Again, keeping all this information in the public's warehouse is a nice step forward.
3. The amendments require annual training for all charter employees and sponsors on public records requirements. This should avoid the embarrassment of charters not telling reporters basic information, like who's on the board and when they meet, like they did last year.
3. Accountability
1. Adds more requirements for the sponsor contracts with schools, which would help bring more sunshine in on that.
2. Allows the state Board of Education to establish additional requirements for new sponsors and allows the Cleveland Transformation Alliance more of a voice on new Cleveland charters. While this isn't meeting the original intent of the Alliance --namely having local communities control which schools can open in them -- it does give them a little more say on which charters can open in Cleveland. And that's a good step. Giving the mostly elected board some additional oversight authority is also a nice step.
3. Requires that the sponsor, not its agent, has to work with the Auditor of State on audits and other procedures. This is a response to Auditor David Yost's recommendations and is a nice step.
4. Has ODE approve all financial plans of charters. Again, solid provision.

As you can see, the vast majority of the provisions are improvements. Do they go as far as they need to? No. But we're definitely on a solid reform path that will help the public be better informed about the sector. And that's important. However, there remains a major blind spot in this bill: the schools themselves.

(Read more at 10th Period)

Panel gets to work on testing in Ohio schools

As students wrapped up their first round of new tests based on Common Core standards, a state advisory panel convened yesterday to study whether Ohio should scale back or even scrap some standardized tests.

The 28-member Senate Advisory Committee on Testing, led by Senate Education Chairwoman Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering, was created in response to growing complaints from parents, teachers and administrators about excessive testing.

“Legitimate concerns have been raised both about the current state assessments as well as Ohio’s overall testing policies,” Lehner told the group, which includes teachers, superintendents, education experts and lawmakers.

The committee will first review Ohio’s shift this year to PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career) tests for English/language arts and mathematics, and AIR (American Institute of Research) exams for science and social studies.

(Read more at the Dispatch)

Charter school revamp underway in legislature

A bill to improve Ohio’s charter school laws got 20 amendments this morning, including new requirements that charter school operator contracts and school board member names be posted online for public view.

Though there was some concern from Democrats on a provision that would weaken a proposed requirement that a school treasurer be employed by the board, not the charter operator, the revisions got largely favorable reactions.

“I think the changes the House made strengthen the bill,” said Chad Aldis of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a strong charter-school supporter that has been critical of Ohio’s lax oversight. “These reforms are strong enough and have a real chance to change the environment in Ohio.”

House Bill 2 seeks to improve oversight, accountability and transparency of a charter school system that has endured sharp criticism in recent months both in Ohio and nationally, even from groups that are strong supporters of school choice. Ohio, which is spending about $1 billion a year on charters, has been called the “wild, wild west” of charter schools.

State Auditor Dave Yost recently called Ohio’s charter school oversight a “broken system of governance.”

The House Education Committee is likely to vote on House Bill 2 next week. It will reconvene this afternoon, where minority Democrats are expected to propose a host of amendments.

(read more at the Dispatch)

Legislators clear way for abolishing Ohio’s school-staffing rule

A legislative review panel paved the way yesterday for the Ohio Board of Education to abolish school-staffing requirements, a move that critics fear will allow districts to eliminate art teachers, librarians, counselors and other staff members.

The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review rejected an effort to invalidate the proposal by a 6-4 party-line vote. Minority Democrats tried to block the change.

The state board is expected to vote at its next meeting, in May, to abolish the “5 of 8” rule that requires schools to have a certain number of art, music and physical-education teachers, counselors, librarians, nurses, social workers and visiting teachers. Supporters argue that the rule is outdated and school districts should have more flexibility with staffing. Critics worry that budget-conscious schools would cut positions deemed not essential for state standardized tests.

(Read more at the Dispatch)

Outreach aims to temper any backlash over tests aligned with the common core

Even as states begin administering new tests aligned with the Common Core State Standards, they are ramping up efforts to eliminate or minimize public backlash when the scores—widely expected to be markedly lower than results from previous assessments—are released later this year.

From old-fashioned fliers designed to reach parents via students' backpacks to webinars intended for administrators and teachers, states including Illinois and New Jersey are using a diverse set of resources and partnering with various groups to prepare school communities and the general public for what's coming.

Their goal: to spread their message that the new tests are a much more accurate and complete reflection of what students know and can do than past exams, and will in turn better inform classroom instruction.

The new assessments will be far from the first time that states have reset the bar for proficiency on tests. Supporters of the new assessments also frequently point to Kentucky's relatively smooth rollout of its common-core-aligned tests in 2012 as the model for how states can ensure the long-term survival of their new standards and assessments.

But state education departments in many cases might not be used to dealing with the volume and nature of questions and criticisms they'll face in local communities and districts. Difficulties in reaching the large swath of the public that hasn't paid attention to the shifts in instruction and testing could also vex officials and other education advocates.

(Read more at EdWeek)

Herculean Efforts By Educators To Mitigate PARCC Catastrophe

Ohio's new standardized tests have been criticized on a number of fronts. Questions about them being developmentally appropriate, results not being available for months, the length of time it takes to administer the tests, the implementation costs, and the technology deficiencies and failures.

The Dispatch reported on the latter set of problems, and they appear to have been widespread, and astronomical in number

Pearson, the testing company that created the state’s new Common Core-aligned English/language arts and math exams, has fielded roughly 9,600 phone calls, emails and chats from Ohio districts since testing started on Feb. 16.

Most of the queries — 86 percent — were related to problems with administering the test, including registering students, getting them into online test sessions and responding to test policies and procedures such as make-up testing.

To understand the full extent of the technology problems PARCC faces, those 10,000 calls must be put in context.

First, only 60% of Ohio's schools administered PARCC online, the rest chose to use paper and pencil. We can only assume that those 40% were the least prepared or capable of offering online testing as a solution this year. how many calls would have been made to Pearson if those schools had had to perform their testing online? How many of those 250 or so school districts will be ready next year?

Secondly, many of the problems we addressed in-house by district staff

Some educators think the number of glitches actually is larger. District technology staffers often turned to one another instead of waiting for a response from a help line answered by the state and Pearson.

No doubt the wait times were lengthy given the sheer volume of problems being experienced.

Nor do these numbers reflect the insane amount of effort districts went to in order to try and mitigate problems before they occurred

The transition at Grandview Heights went seamlessly for students, thanks to nearly 1,000 hours of planning and preparation by staff members, said Jamie Lusher, the district’s chief academic officer. The district tested 780 students.

That's over 1 hour per students, a pattern repeated elsewhere

Bexley schools purposely delayed testing by a week so that any glitches found early would be resolved by the time the district’s students logged in for their exams, Ross said. Also, the district’s technology department spent more than 200 hours preparing devices and planning for administration of the tests. Only 332 high-school students took the exam online; the rest used paper and pencil.

Almost 3 hours preparation per student!

It simply shouldn't be a requirement that Herculean efforts be needed in order to avoid an epic catastrophe. how can you have a high stakes system under these conditions

“If you have a classroom with three to five technical issues and you may have to reset the device, that’s not closing it up and starting it back up again,” said Paul Ross, technology director at Bexley schools. “With some of those device issues, you have to reinstall the test application on the fly. We’re talking about a disruption occurring while testing.”

That has to be solved quickly, he said, or students will have to make up the test.

This years' testing results ought to be treated as a test run, it would be grossly unfair to judge educators and schools on the basis of a product that is barely functional.