include

3rd grade reading guarantee changes again

The Ohio House finally moved SB21 out of committee. SB21 is the bill that tries to fix many of the problems raised by the initial third grade reading guarantee legislation. The Committee made a number of changes, but according to the bill's Sponsor, Sen. Peggy Lehner, she expects the Senate will agree with those changes.

According to a Gongwer report, the amendments made by the House include:

The omnibus amendment would add a requirement that all teachers providing reading guarantee services have at least one year of teaching experience unless they meet at least one of the bill's criteria to provide services and is mentored by a teacher with at least one year of experience, according to a Legislative Service Commission comparison document.

It also specifies teachers who qualify to provide services by virtue of a reading endorsement on their license must also have passed the State Board of Education-required assessment for the endorsement only "as applicable."

The latest version eliminates from the list of acceptable reading guarantee qualifications teachers determined by ODE as an "effective reading instructor" and teachers who completed a program from a list of scientifically researched-based reading instruction options.

The amended bill instead adds to the list of acceptable qualifications to include teachers:

  • Rated "most effective" for reading instruction for the last two years based on assessments of student growth measures developed by a vendor approved by the state board.
  • Rated "above expected value-added" for reading for the two most recent years per criteria established by ODE.
  • Holding an educator license for teaching grades PreK-3 or 4-9 issued on or after July 1, 2017. The omnibus amendment requires all new applicants for educator licenses for those grades pass an exam aligned with reading competencies established by the state board.

The state board is required to adopt those competencies Jan. 31, 2014 under the bill, and must cover all reading credentials and training that include an understanding of phonemic awareness, phonics, appropriate use of assessment, appropriate instruction materials, among others.

Starting July 2014, alternative credential and training that qualify a teacher to instruct students identified by the reading guarantee would be aligned with the reading competencies, according to LSC.

Those teachers who do not meet the listed qualifications nor have one year teaching experience would be permitted to provide reading guarantee services if he or she holds an alternative credential or has successfully completed training using research-based reading instruction approved by ODE.

The omnibus amendment also puts in place ramifications for schools that fail to perform on reading aspects of the state report card. Schools would be required to submit improvement plans to ODE if they receive a D or F on the K-3 literacy progress measure and less than 60% of their students who took the third-grade English language arts assessment attained at least a proficient score, according to LSC. Submission of improvement plans would start in 2016.

A school could cease submitting an improvement plan if it receives a grade of C or better on the K-3 literacy measure or at least 60% of students taking the third-grade ELA exam scored proficient or better.

Other changes made in the omnibus amendment include:

  • An exemption from the reading guarantee for those limited English proficient students who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for fewer than three years and who have had less than three years instruction in an English as a second language program. Current law exempts those with fewer than two years.
  • Allowing schools unable to meet personnel requirements to request a staffing plan beyond the 2013-14 school year. Those submitting plans must also report on progress the school has made in meeting requirements of the law.
  • Requiring ODE to study diagnostic assessments for reading and writing in grades K-3 that might be considered for approval by the state board.

The LSC analysis if the changes can be seen in the following document, with the House changes contained in the right hand column.

SB21 As Reported by the House Education Committee

Cleveland School Plan Needs Work

This is a very level headed and reasonable approach to modify Frank Jackson's corporate education reform plan into something that might work and would bring more people willingly into the process.

Columbus: Innovation Ohio, a progressive think tank headquartered in Columbus, today released an analysis of the education reform plan recently put forward by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson. Governor Kasich has indicated the plan might serve as a model for his own education reform effort, which presumably will include the new school funding formula he promised but so far has failed to deliver. The analysis is available at www.innovationohio.org.

IO said an analysis of the “Cleveland Plan” is important given Ohio’s history of expanding Cleveland education experiments, such as private school vouchers, state-wide. “If Governor Kasich is intent on using the Cleveland Plan as a model for other Ohio school districts, then it’s critical that we get it right,” said IO President Janetta King.

The analysis found a number of “things to like” about the Cleveland Plan, including:

  • Innovations such as a Global Language Academy, an Environmental Science School, Early Childhood Education Academies in every neighborhood, and an English Immersion School for all children for whom English is a second language;
  • A focus on high-quality preschool education, as well as on college and workforce readiness; and
  • A series of proposed changes to state law that would, for example, give the Cleveland Metropolitan School District flexibility to manage its fiscal assets and close loopholes in existing law that allow poorly-performing Charter Schools to continue operating.

IO said other ideas, like adoption of a year-round school calendar, support for high-quality Charter Schools, and the aggressive pursuit of talented teachers, “have potential, but need more work and further fleshing-out.”

But Innovation Ohio said several Cleveland Plan ideas are fatally flawed as currently written and should either be modified substantially or jettisoned entirely. Among these are:

  • A proposal to allow the transfer of local property tax revenue to Charter schools;
  • The transfer of school oversight and other functions from the Cleveland School Board (accountable to the Mayor) to an unelected and less accountable “Cleveland Transformation Alliance”;
  • A weighted per pupil funding formula with “money following the child” that, in IO’s view, would inevitably end up short-changing either students or schools;
  • Several proposals relating to teacher compensation, collective bargaining and accountability, which IO says are exact replicas of provisions in last year’s Senate Bill 5, which Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected with 61% of the vote in November.

Said IO President Janetta King:

“IO congratulates the authors of the Cleveland Plan for thinking outside the box and being willing to go big. Nothing is more important to Ohio’s future than our schools and our kids. That’s why education reform is so important, and it’s why all of us who truly care about our state, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, liberals and moderates alike–must be willing to embrace change and challenge the status quo.

“But our goal cannot be change for the sake of change, or change that can’t work and will only make things worse. So Innovation Ohio has tried to be constructive in our analysis. Where we’ve been critical of the Cleveland Plan, we’ve offered alternative ideas and proposals that we believe are more likely to achieve the desired goals.

“But we recognize that we don’t have all the answers. Frankly, neither do the people who put the Cleveland Plan together. And that is why we believe any serious school reform discussion should and must include the voices of professional educators, parents, and other members of the community. We hope their exclusion will be rectified in the weeks and months ahead.

“So what is Innovation Ohio’s bottom-line take on the Cleveland Plan? We believe the Plan as written is a reasonable place to start, but would be a terrible place to end up. It needs work and IO stands ready to help any way we can.”

Performance Index Ranking for Districts and Schools – A Preview

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has just released a preview of its new ranking of Ohio public school buildings’ performance.

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is giving parents, educators and taxpayers a preview of a new approach for comparing academic performance among schools and districts. Effective September 2012, House Bill 153 requires all school districts and school buildings to be ranked using the Performance Index (PI) score. Such rankings will provide parents and taxpayers a new way to evaluate how local schools are performing while allowing educators to compare their performance with peers.

The school district list will include all city, local and exempted village school districts as well as joint vocational school districts, community schools and STEM schools. The school building list will include all schools that are part of city, local or exempted village school district as well as community schools, joint vocational schools and STEM schools

Preliminary Rankings

Buildings

Districts

All school buildings All districts
High schools Traditional districts only
Middle Schools District Notes
Elementary Schools
Community Schools
Building Notes
Each school building in city, local and exempted village school districts, as well as joint vocational school districts, community schools and STEM schools are ranked using a Performance Index (PI) score. PI scores combine individual students’ results on all tested subjects in grades 3-8 on Ohio’s Achievement Assessments (OAAs) and on the 10th-grade Ohio Graduation Test (OGTs). The Performance Index score has been widely used and endorsed by Ohio educators since its adoption in 2003.*

The PI scores are not new, and it has been possible to create ranking lists with them using existing interactive tools on the ODE website. Such district and county rankings have been done frequently by independent groups, but this is the first statewide ranking completed and released by ODE.

The rankings are required under House Bill 153. The final ranking list is required to be released by September 2012.

*Calculating the Performance Index All assessments have five performance levels, which include: Advanced; Accelerated; Proficient; Basic; and Limited. The percentage of students scoring at each performance level is calculated, and then multiplied by the point value assigned to that performance level. The points earned for each performance level are totaled to determine each school’s Performance Index score, where applicable.

2011 District Preliminary Ranking List - All Districts

More crazy teacher evaluation ideas

It seems there's even more crazy ideas about how to evaluate teachers than we originally thought. Now, one school district wants to include chance grocery store encounters to the evaluation matrix. No, we're not joking.

A teacher who has a chance encounter with a parent at a grocery store and chats about school can earn credit toward a financial bonus.

That is the way it is in the Challis School District in Idaho, a state where nearly 30 school systems have adopted teacher evaluation systems that include as one measure how well teachers get parents involved in their child’s education.

In the five-school Challis system, teachers are supposed to make contact with the parents of each of their students at least twice every three months, according to the Associated Press.

A teacher can send a note home to fulfill one of the “contact” requirements, though the other must be face to face. It can, Challis Superintendent Colby Gull was quoted as saying by the AP, be fulfilled by a chat in the supermarket during an unexpected encounter with a parent.

That counts for official contact purposes, he said, “as long as they’re talking about what’s going on in the classroom and the parent is informed about their student.’’

Budget priorities

We saw the news that the Governor had decided to award Diebold $56 million

GREEN, Ohio -- ATM manufacturer Diebold Inc. will receive at least $56 million in state assistance to keep its headquarters in Northeast Ohio

In exchange for the state building this lavish world HQ, Diebold promises it won't lay off more than 400 of its 1900 workforce. Quite the deal for a company with $2.7 billion in annual revenue.

But that got us thinking.

The administration has made a decision that its better to award a company that makes ATM machines for bailed out banks $56 million than to use that money to save gifted education funding which is slashed by $60 million. That, to us, is a strange priority.

Now some might argue that one is about jobs and the other isn't. We'd disagree, but let's look at some other priority decisions being made. We scanned through news of school job losses because of this budget, in no particular order we quickly compiled this list of 525 job losses because of $45.2 million in funding cuts.

74 jobs, $2.5 million

In March, the board presented a long list of proposed cuts which totaled more than $2.5 million. The cuts include:

26 teachers coming from a variety of grade levels
8 bus drivers
30 support staff
Possible closing of Hooven Elementary
Decrease building budgets by 25 percent
Decrease of supplemental contracts

73 jobs, $6.3 million

Proposed State Cuts Would Deliver 'Devastating' Blow to Westlake City Schools. Between 44 and 73 jobs may be eliminated in an effort to close the budget gap.
[…]
Westlake school officials are maneuvering on district, local and state levels to find a way to absorb $6.3 million in proposed state funding cuts over the next two school years.

74 jobs, $3 million

Adams County/Ohio Valley School District School tax levy going to vote

The reductions we must make for the 2011-12 school year will be 74 positions. Reductions will include support staff including cooks, custodians and secretaries. It will include certified staff including administrators, high school teachers, elementary teachers, counselors and the elimination of some programs and instructors at the Career and Technical Center.
[…]
The levy is a five year emergency levy. After five years it must be renewed by voters or it will be dropped. It will bring in 3 million dollars per year for the five year period.

120 jobs, $13 million

Pickerington teacher layoffs set
Board approves reduction of up to 120 jobs in bid to trim budget by $13 million

14 jobs, $2.5 million

Delaware schools to seek levy, offer cuts
The $2.5 million in cuts for next school year include eliminating 14 staff positions, limiting field trips and phasing out German and Latin classes.

37 jobs, $2.9 million

Hudson -- Almost 200 people, many of them wearing the blue union shirts of the Hudson Education Association, listened as the School Board on April 4 voted to eliminate 37 positions before the start of the 2011-12 school year.

The eliminated positions will save the district $2.9 million in salaries and benefits but leave about 34 people out of work, according to Assistant Superintendent Phil Herman.

133 jobs, $12 million

Regardless of when the board does take action, members have warned Lakota residents to expect to see the deepest cuts in personnel and student programs in the district's 54 year history for next school year. Moreover, board members said the final cuts will resemble the current $12 million plan and Lakota students will face a scaled-down school system in August.
[…]
Lakota's latest proposed cuts include 133 teaching, counseling and related classroom positions - including 28 teaching jobs at Lakota East and Lakota West high schools. Students would have also have had fewer choices as those schools return to seven daily class periods, eliminating block scheduling.

We can all agree that there is a serious budget problem in our state, but I think we can also see that some of the decisions being made, and the priorities being pushed are only in the narrow interest of the few - and have nothing whatsoever to do with job creation or the economy.

Not when budget priorities serve to reward financial industry companies on the backs of students, teachers and local property tax payers. Does that seem right to you?