Bill Phillis reposts here an article by Denis Smith, who offers sound advice about the questions you should ask if you visit a charter school.
|
|
|
|
Archives for category: Ohio
Bill Phillis, retired deputy superintendent of schools for the state of Ohio, finds it hard to believe that a state legislature would seize control of a school district and remove its elected school board from office. When did Republicans become diehard enemies of local control? It has become clear that the state has no ideas about how to help low-scoring districts. None.
He writes:
Never thought this would happen in America
The state is in the process of replacing elected school board members in Youngstown. The electors in Youngstown elected board members. These board members will be replaced via the HB 70 process.
The Youngstown Board of Education has not been in control of the district for several years. State control of the district has not resulted in improvement. Therefore, elected board members are being removed from office because the state’s improvement process has failed. Sounds logical.
Youngstown board members have not been convicted of any crimes which would be cause for removal from office. Their hands have been tied by HB 70.
Congress and some state legislatures across the nation have not demonstrated a stellar performance. Should those elected officials be replaced by some convoluted appointment process?
How can Ohio legislators and the Governor allow this despicable process to come to fruition? HB 70 was enacted in less than 24 hours with no public input. The legislature could repeal HB 70 in less than 24 hours.
The State Legislature and Governor in Ohio must be the dumbest in the nation. They responded to low test scores in Youngstown by imposing state control of the district. Needless to say, the state did not have a clue about how to improve the schools, so the state is now replacing the powerless elected local board with mayoral control.
Jan Resseger writes here about this absurd turn of events.
Officials from the Ohio Department of Education have begun replacing the locally elected school board in Youngstown with a mayoral appointed school board.
This week we learned about one more extension of autocratic state power backloaded in 2015 into the HB 70’s school district takeover of Youngstown. Because at the end of four years of state takeover, the Youngstown school district earned another “F” on the state report card, the state is now imposing a previously unknown provision of the 2015, HB 70, which established state takeover in the first place.
The replacement of the elected school board in Youngstown with a state-approved, mayoral-appointed school board is designed to punish Youngstown for not raising its grade to “C” during four years of state takeover. What is particularly shocking about the new development is that the locally elected school board has had no role to play in the operation of Youngstown’s schools since the time of the state takeover in 2015. The state has been running the district through a state appointed Academic Distress Commission which appointed a CEO to lead the school district.
Krish Mohip, the state-appointed CEO whose term ended on July 31, was never happy in his position, and last spring, several months prior to the end of his term, Mohip took family medical leave. At the time The Youngstown Vindicator‘s Amanda Tonoli reported that Mohip explained: “I’m going to take care of some issues that have accumulated at home, and I’m going to focus my attention there… I don’t see my absence as being a hindrance to all the great work that’s happened and will continue to happen over the next few years.” Mohip left, but he did not resign. Instead he collected the rest of his $170,000 salary. Tonoli added: “A longevity provision in Mohip’s contract allows him a $10,000 payout if he completes his full contract.”
Nobody was sorry to see Mohip go. The chair of the Academic Distress Commission explained: “We have to uphold what the contract says… We are following the law and following the contract that was agreed upon with Krish Mohip.” The blatant arrogance of Mohip’s mode of departure was merely the latest example of his abuse of the public trust. He did not ever move his family to Youngstown, for example.
A new CEO, Justin Jennings, formerly the school superintendent in Saginaw, Michigan, was recently appointed by the state-appointed, Youngstown Academic Distress Commission.
Under HB 70, the residents of the school district have been permitted by the state to elect a local board of education, but its only power has been to decide whether and when to put a property tax levy on the ballot.
Corporate reformers have run out of ideas. They continue to believe that democracy is the problem, that democracy causes low test scores. Everything they try has failed. They fail and fail. They are shameless.
Bill Phillis, founder of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, reports on a new study that undercuts the rationale for state takeovers.
He writes:
Research study: Students learn no less in poor, urban schools than other schools
OSU Professor of Sociology, Dr. Douglas Downey, lead author of a recent study , found that students in urban districts with high concentrations of disadvantaged students learn as much during the school year as those in wealthier districts. Disadvantaged students, of course, start school at a lower level of development, but according to the research study, disadvantaged students don’t lose ground while in school.
This research (and common sense) helps dispel the myth that districts serving high concentrations of disadvantaged students are “failing” just because of low test scores.
This study should inform state officials who are bent on state takeover of school districts (HB 70.) Because a school district has low test scores is not justification for state takeover. (Besides Ohio’s takeover of Youngstown and Lorain have not improved the districts.)
If state officials want the state to takeover some school districts, all districts should be in the pool of candidates for takeover, not just those that serve high concentrations of disadvantaged students.
Ditch HB 70. Just do it.
The Distribution of School Quality: Do Schools Serving Mostly White and High-SES Children Produce the Most Learning?
First Published August 23, 2019 Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040719870683
Abstract
What is schools’ role in the stratification system? One view is that schools are an important mechanism for perpetuating inequality because children from advantaged backgrounds (white and high socioeconomic) enjoy better school learning environments than their disadvantaged peers. But it is difficult to know this with confidence because children’s development is a product of both school and nonschool factors, making it a challenge to isolate school’s role. A novel approach for isolating school effects is to estimate the difference in learning when school is in versus out, what is called impact. Scholars employing this strategy have come to a remarkable conclusion—that schools serving disadvantaged children produce as much learning as those serving advantaged children. The empirical basis for this position is modest, however, and so we address several shortcomings of the previous research by analyzing a nationally representative sample of about 3,500 children in 270 schools from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort of 2011. With more comprehensive data and better scales, we also find no difference in impact on reading scores across schools serving poor or black children versus those serving nonpoor or white children. These patterns challenge the view that differences in school quality play an important role shaping achievement gaps and prompt us to reconsider theoretical positions regarding schools and inequality.
William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540| ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| www.ohiocoalition.org
Jan Resseger reports here on Stephen Dyer’s astute analysis of Ohio’s state budget. Dyer is a former legislator who is now an Education Policy Fellow at Innovation Ohio.
This is Dyer’s report. Read it and weep. Ohio’s rightwing Republicans care more about campaign contributors than they care about the state’s students or the quality of education.
In looking at the plums for charters and vouchers, please bear in mind that most charter schools in Ohio are low-performing and score far below public schools, even in urban districts. And remember too that a study of Ohio’s voucher program sponsored by the rightwing Thomas B. Fordham Institute concluded that students who used vouchers actually lost ground academically. So, when you see legislators increasing funding for vouchers and reducing oversight of charters, be aware that Ohio is underwriting and rewarding failure.
Resseger writes:
In the 2020-2021 biennial Ohio budget signed into law in July, lawmakers quietly embedded the radical expansion of school privatization. Rewards for charter schools and tuition voucher expansion are written into the budget in a lots of little ways, however, which means that, during the budget debate, few noticed the overall significance of exploding state support for school privatization. A new report released last week by Innovation Ohio, however, connects the dots among several measures which together will undermine oversight of charter schools and at the same time radically expand tuition vouchers. The report includes an examination of the fiscal implications for local public school districts.
The former chair of the Ohio House Education Subcommittee of Finance and now Innovation Ohio’s education policy fellow, Steve Dyer authored the report, which ought to be essential reading for legislators and a broad range of citizens—from experts to people who have not previously tracked the issue. Dyer writes a basic primer and at the same time an analysis sophisticated enough to teach experts something new.
Dyer begins: “When Governor Mike DeWine signed HB166 into law, he approved a budget that lawmakers had packed full of little-noticed gifts to those who seek to erode support for traditional public schools through a proliferation of charter and private school options funded at taxpayer expense.” Dyer explains that the new Ohio budget:
- weakens Ohio’s 2015 charter school oversight law that mandated automatic closure for academic failure after two years;
- weakens standards for Ohio’s already deplorable sector of “dropout recovery” charter schools;
- weakens Ohio’s oversight of its many charter school authorizers; and
- increases the transfer of state and even local taxpayer dollars to private—mostly religious—schools.
Read this summary of the state’s preferential treatment of failing charters and see if you can overcome an impulse to gag:
Although in 2015, the state cracked down on academically failing charter schools by mandating their closure after two years of failing test scores, the new budget awards these schools an extra, third year to stay in business. The new budget gives 52 schools which had been preparing to close another year of life. Dyer adds: “Interestingly, of the 52 charters that were scheduled to be closed under the old standard, 34 are run by for-profit charter school operators, including almost 20 percent of the former White Hat schools now being operated by Ron Packard—the founder of K-12 Inc.—the nation’s largest (and most notorious) online charter school operator. Another big operator set to take a hit was J.C. Huizenga’s 10 Ohio-based National Heritage Academies. Six of those were on the chopping block before the legislature offered a legislative reprieve. Huizenga is an acolyte of Betsy DeVos—the controversial U.S. Secretary of Education—and his political connections have kept his schools afloat for years, despite complaints….”
The new state budget also weakens standards at a set of charter schools described by their promoters as providing opportunity for students who have dropped out of school. While the education of school dropouts is a worthy purpose, in Ohio, the state has been providing millions of dollars of support for schools that clearly fail to accomplish that stated goal: “Some graduate less than two percent of their students in four years and less than 10 percent in eight years. The state’s already lax standards only require that dropout recovery schools graduate eight percent of their students in four years.” Before they can graduate, students in these schools must pass a state-approved test, but the new budget permits these schools, “to adopt another, easier test, and reduces the passing score.” It is predicted that the change in standards will save some of these schools from mandatory closure.
Ohio’s legislature is either bought and paid for by privatization advocates (very likely) or it is dominated by ideologues who want to reward failure regardless of how many children are miseducated.
Bill Phillis of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy points out the obvious: State-issued school grades punish schools and districts for enrolling too many poor kids.
Ohio’s school report card grades predict median household income, child poverty rate, level of education attainment of adults
An “F” rating on Ohio’s school report card is guaranteed in districts with lowest median household income, highest child poverty rates and lowest level of education attainment by adults.
Rich Exner of the Cleveland Plain Dealerdid the numbers. “A” districts on average have the highest median household income and “F” districts have the lowest. Low poverty rates and high education attainment rates are found in “A” rated districts; and high poverty rates and low education attainment rates are found in “F” rated districts.
That Ohio’s report card measures demographics and not the aptitude and competence of the board of education and its personnel is obvious; however, state officials blame low report card grades on school district leaders and personnel. Therefore, state officials want to have the state takeover “F” rated school districts. Totally illogical.
The state takeovers in Youngstown and Lorain have failed to produce positive results; however, some members of the Senate Education Committee want to continue down the path of this failed strategy. How asinine.
Politico Education reports that Secretary Betsy DeVos and her political appointees are fanning out across the country to promote charters, vouchers, and educational “freedom” from public schools. She will be in Indiana and Ohio, which already have vouchers and charters, most of which are low-performing.
Under DeVos, the official mission of the U.S. Department of Education is to destroy and privatize public schools.
DEVOS HEADS TO INDIANA, OHIO: The Education secretary begins Day 2 of the Trump administration’s “back to school” tour with stops in Indiana and Ohio today.
— DeVos will visit Purdue Polytechnic High School, a public charter school in Indianapolis, in the morning where she’ll meet with students and faculty and tour STEM classes, according to the department. The administration said the school is a good example of an approach to education that breaks down the silos among K-12 and higher education and businesses.
— In the afternoon, DeVos will head to Cleveland. She’ll tour the Great Lakes Science Center and a specialized high school, MC2STEM High School, which is part of the Cleveland Metropolitan School District. DeVos will then visit EDWINS Leadership and Restaurant Institute, “where formerly incarcerated individuals are given the tools they need to transition home, including the opportunity to learn a skilled and in-demand trade in the culinary arts,” the department said.
— Several other top Education Department officials are also fanning out across the country today as part of the administration’s nationwide tour to promote its “rethink school” agenda.
— Deputy Education Secretary Mick Zais will be in Montana. He’ll tour schools and meet with officials in Pryor and Billings along with Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction Elsie Arntzen.
— Johnny Collett, assistant secretary for special education and rehabilitative services, will head to Missouri. He’ll tour an elementary school in Belton and meet with students and faculty at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
— Scott Stump, the assistant secretary for career, technical, and adult education, will be in New Mexico. He’ll tour a high school in Albuquerque in the morning and Santa Fe Community College in the afternoon.
Stephen Dyer, former legislator and Senior fellow at Innovation Ohio, reviews Ohio’s school report cards here.
http://10thperiod.blogspot.com/2019/09/charter-schools-overrepresentation-of.html
Remember when charter schools were going to “save poor kids from failing public schools”? What happens when public schools outperform charter schools, as happened in 2019?
Remember when charter schools were going to show public schools how to close the achievement gaps? Not going to happen because the charter industry is failing in Ohio.
Dyer writes:
Ohio’s charter schools, which represent about 10 percent of Ohio’s school buildings, make up about 40 percent of Ohio’s school buildinsg that received overall F grades.
Factoring out charter schools shows that among the 3,029 non-charter school buildings made up the remaining 208 F buildings, or not even 7 percent of Ohio’s public school buildings. Ohio’s charter schools? A full 36 percent of them received overall F grades.
But even the degree of F grades are striking. Of the 45 Performance Index percentages that are below the 33rd percentile, 35 are charter schools, which means about 10 pecrent of all charters are below the 33rd percentile on Performance Index scores — the state’s index of proficiency.
Of the 71 school buildings that received zero gap closing points, 45 were charter schools, which means that nearly 13 percent of all charters received zero points for closing achievement gaps.
The opposite trend continues on the positive end — few charters occupy top performance positions.
Of the 281 buildings that received A grades for Performance Index, only 9 were charter schools. Again, charters are about 10 percent of all buildings, but only are 3 percent of the top scoring buildings on proficiency.
Who will “save poor kids from failing charter schools?”
When will the Ohio Legislature stop pushing failing charters and vouchers?
Ohio released its school report cards. Bill Phillis summarizes the results:
Charter schools report card grades dismal
If there is any value in the state report card scheme, it is that it reveals the failure of the charter experiment.
71 charters or 23% received F grades compared to only seven tenths of one percent of school districts. Six charters or .3% received A grades compared to 5% of school districts. 87 charters or 28% received a D grade compared to 122 districts or 20%. 60 charters or 19% received C grades compared to 281 or 46% of school districts. 158 charters or 51% received D or F grades compared to 126 or 20% for school districts.
The $11 billion Ohio charter experiment, that was established to show districts the way to improve student outcomes, is a dud.
It is time for state officials to admit failure and cancel the experiment.
In this fall’s school board elections in Cincinnati, one of the candidates will be a TFA alum who is trying again after almost being kicked out of the Democratic Party three years ago.
Ben Lindy is the director of Teach for America in Cincinnati. He attended elite suburban schools, then graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School. After he taught in rural North Carolina, he tried to start his political career by running for state representative in Ohio. He was nearly censured and booted from the Democratic Party at that time when union officials discovered that he had written a law journal article that was anti-union and that was cited in a Supreme Court case to hurt the cause of collective bargaining. In that paper, he argued that collective bargaining agreements raise the performance of high-achieving students and lower the performance of “poorly achieving students.” On the face of it, this claim is absurd, first, because there are many different variables that affect student performance, especially in the state he studied, New Mexico, which has one of the highest child poverty rates in the nation. Consider also that the highest performing states in the nation–Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey–have strong teachers’ unions, while the lowest performing states in the nation (mainly in the South) do not.
The 2016 effort to oust him from the Democratic Party failed by 26-21. When he was questioned about this stance on organized labor, he claimed to be pro-union but claimed that he hadn’t give much though to union issues.
Lindy showed a lack of knowledge about some labor issues. When asked his stance on prevailing wage, he said: “This is an issue I’d like to know more about.”
“I’m not hearing how you’ve evolved,” said Pat Bruns, a committee member who sits on the state board of education.
Lindy is a prodigious fund-raiser, which is enough to recommend him to some party leaders.
But party leaders should check where Lindy’s campaign cash is coming from. If it is coming from “Democrats for Education Reform,” bear in mind that these are hedge fund managers who are anti-union and anti-public schools, who favor TFA and merit pay. If it is coming from “Leadership for Educational Equity,” that is TFA’s political arm, which is anti-union and pro-charter school.
Be informed before you vote.
Diane Ravitch's blog 