Ohio bill to regulate charter schools will get more work

House Republicans are slowing down action on a charter school oversight bill that was supposed to get significant revisions on Monday.

Work on the bill will continue for at least another week, as leaders weigh numerous amendments to House Bill 2, said Rep. Bill Hayes, R-Granville, chairman of the House Education Committee.

Even more suggestions came in Monday from groups including the Ohio Newspaper Association, which urged lawmakers to improve transparency among charter schools that are spending $1 billion a year in taxpayer money.

“There is no complaint we hear more often from Ohio journalists than the inability to report meaningfully on the activities of community schools,” said Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the Newspaper Association. “There remains only minimal ability for the public to know how those dollars are being spent in many cases.”

The bill seeks to upgrade transparency, accountability and conflict-of-interest provisions in Ohio’s charter school law, which has endured criticism and ridicule in Ohio and nationally for lax oversight that, critics argue, wastes taxpayer money and allows too many bad charter schools to operate.

(Read more at the Dispatch)

The Ohio Education Association Says Changes to Current Testing Mandates Are Urgently Needed

Ohio Education Association (OEA) President Becky Higgins today urged members of the Ohio Senate Education Committee to reduce the amount of time being spent preparing for and taking tests, and to extend to 3 years a moratorium on high-stakes decisions based on student test scores. A complete copy of her testimony is attached.

Higgins said current testing measures are flawed. “Teachers are beyond frustrated with the increasing amount of time spent on testing and the way it has crowded out time needed to teach and engage students in dynamic ways. They tell me about the anxiety felt by their students and the growing number of parents who are considering having their children ‘opt out’ of tests. There is a fundamental imbalance that needs to be corrected.”

In her testimony, Higgins proposed four steps that policymakers could take to bring about much-needed change:

“First, reduce the amount of time spent on testing,” said Higgins. “There is too much time devoted to testing. It’s crowding out time for teaching and learning, limiting student engagement and narrowing our curriculum. The disproportionate time spent on testing is being felt by students, parents and educators. It’s time to focus more clearly on our students and their needs.”

“Second, address problems with the tests. The transition to the new tests, including PARCC, is producing mixed results at best,” said Higgins. “A myriad of issues have been raised including technology, lack of timely guidance, tests not properly aligned to standards, age appropriateness of tests, insufficient accommodations for special education students and a lack of timely results from the assessment. These problems must be fixed.”

“Third, use the data appropriately to focus on helping students. Timely data from testing should be used to inform instruction, advance student learning and promote the growth of educators in their practice. It is not appropriate to tie high-stakes decisions to testing results,” testified Higgins.

“And finally, allow time to get implementation right. As Ohio makes the transition to new standards and assessments, there needs to be sufficient time to make adjustments. OEA renews its call for policy makers to hit the pause button and extend to 3 years a moratorium on the use of student test scores in measuring student growth, evaluating teacher performance and any adverse consequence on local schools,” said Higgins.

“OEA believes it is important to limit both the time spent on testing and the use of test results to make high-stakes decisions. The current fixation with testing is sucking the oxygen out of our education system. Students, parents and educators are saying enough is enough,” said Higgins.

The Ohio Education Association represents 121,000 teachers, faculty members and support professionals in Ohio's public schools, colleges and universities.

Poor ranking on international test misleading about U.S. student performance, Stanford researcher finds

Socioeconomic inequality among U.S. students skews international comparisons of test scores, finds a new report released today by the Stanford Graduate School of Education and the Economic Policy Institute. When differences in countries' social class compositions are adequately taken into account, the performance of U.S. students in relation to students in other countries improves markedly.

An accurate comparison of nations' test scores must include a look at the social class characteristics of the students who take the test in each country, says Stanford education Professor Martin Carnoy. The report, What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?, also details how errors in selecting sample populations of test-takers and arbitrary choices regarding test content contribute to results that appear to show U.S. students lagging.

In conducting the research, report co-authors Martin Carnoy, a professor of education at Stanford, and Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, examined adolescent reading and mathematics results from four test series over the last decade, sorting scores by social class for the Program on International Student Assessment (PISA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and two forms of the domestic National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Based on their analysis, the co-authors found that average U.S. scores in reading and math on the PISA are low partly because a disproportionately greater share of U.S. students comes from disadvantaged social class groups, whose performance is relatively low in every country.

As part of the study, Carnoy and Rothstein calculated how international rankings on the most recent PISA might change if the United States had a social class composition similar to that of top-ranking nations: U.S. rankings would rise to sixth from 14th in reading and to 13th from 25th in math. The gap between U.S. students and those from the highest-achieving countries would be cut in half in reading and by at least a third in math.

"You can't compare nations' test scores without looking at the social class characteristics of students who take the test in different countries," said Carnoy. "Nations with more lower social class students will have lower overall scores, because these students don't perform as well academically, even in good schools. Policymakers should understand how our lower and higher social class students perform in comparison to similar students in other countries before recommending sweeping school reforms."

The report also found:

There is an achievement gap between more and less disadvantaged students in every country; surprisingly, that gap is smaller in the United States than in similar post-industrial countries, and not much larger than in the very highest scoring countries.

Achievement of U.S. disadvantaged students has been rising rapidly over time, while achievement of disadvantaged students in countries to which the United States is frequently unfavorably compared – Canada, Finland and Korea, for example – has been falling rapidly.

But the highest social class students in United States do worse than their peers in other nations, and this gap widened from 2000 to 2009 on the PISA.

U.S. PISA scores are depressed partly because of a sampling flaw resulting in a disproportionate number of students from high-poverty schools among the test-takers. About 40 percent of the PISA sample in the United States was drawn from schools where half or more of the students are eligible for the free lunch program, though only 32 percent of students nationwide attend such schools.

(Read more at Stanford)

Video: 3 High School girls take on 6th Grade PARCC practice test

2 seniors and a sophomore from Elyria High School (all on the honors track) take on the practice PARCC test for 6th grade mathematics (PBA). It doesn't go well.

We are taking the practice Math PBA [performance based assessment] PARCC test for sixth grade.

Brooke is in Calculus which is only available on the track of honors math classes meaning during freshman year she started in Geometry, although students can get on the track and double up on math classes for a year and get up to calculus.

I [Megan] took a quarter of calculus but dropped it because I did not need it for college and am taking statistics.

Melanie is in honors classes but is a sophomore, she had more of a fresher memory to middle school math since she’s younger.

This test was hard for ALL three of us.

“I can’t do this,” the girl in the middle says at one point when the test asks students to explain why an answer is wrong.

The girl on the right says she could probably figure out the answers if she had her graphing calculator, but her friend reminds her that 6th graders aren’t allowed to use the more advanced calculators.

“How are 6th graders supposed to take this?” the girl in the middle exclaims.

“I can’t even do this. I’m 12th grade. I’m six years ahead of them!”

The girls complain that with the online test they can’t go back and check their work like they’re able to do with a paper test.

“I feel like I’m going to cry because I don’t know this and I feel so stupid,” says the girl in the middle.

By the time they get to question 11 of 12 on the first section, the girls give up, completely flummoxed by the test, despite their team effort.

When they try to view their scores, they are again frustrated when they discover that they must register for an account to see how they did on the practice test.

“Well, I’m not going to make an account for something I don’t support,” one girl complains (which raises some questions about the motives of this exercise).

Kasich says A-F Report Card less clear for Charter Schools

Last week, Gov. John Kasich said in his State of the State Address that

"just because a charter school is not producing great results in grades, it doesn't mean they're failing." Huh? The whole reason we went to an A-F system was to tell us exactly that -- which schools and districts were failing and which weren't. Wasn't it? I'm not saying that I agree with this idea, but that was the point, right?

So I went back to Kasich's signing ceremony for the bill that created the state's A-F system.

When Kasich signed HB 555 two years ago, the placard on his signing desk said "Empowering Teachers and Parents for Student Achievement". You can watch his whole ceremony here

Go ahead. Look for the part where he says if schools get Fs, it doesn't mean they're failing. You'll look for a while.

Here's what Kasich said then:

"We need to speak in clear language that parents can understand... it will let mothers and fathers understand how's it going in reading? How's it going in mathematics? It's going to allow them to see exactly how the school is doing. This is a big deal for our state. Academically."

Now it appears that perhaps that clarity isn't quite as clear for parents of kids in charter schools. Notice he didn't apply that qualification for local school districts, by the way.

(Read more at 10th Period)

Charter spent $2.27M on advertising

Ohio’s largest online charter school spent at least $2.27 million of state education tax dollars last school year on advertising to attract students, or about $155 for each student who enrolled that year.

And that’s only part of the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow’s advertising budget, because other advertising — including those featuring Jack Hanna, director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, as an ECOT spokesman — are paid for by the school’s for-profit management company, and its records are not public.

“We’re always concerned with the amount of money or expenditures spent in classroom instruction,” said Rick Teeters, superintendent of ECOT. “We try to keep the marketing expenditure around or under 2 percent of the total budget.”

ECOT’s 2013-14 revenue was $112.7 million, 90 percent funded by the state.

ECOT’s spending on advertising during the 2013-14 school year included:

• $1.79 million on ads, including radio and television time.

• $119,722 on Facebook ads.

• $135,418 on Google ads.

• $35,938 on mailing lists.

By comparison, Columbus City Schools, the state’s largest district, spent just over $108,000 on ads during 2013-14, about half of which was to remind parents to enroll their children before the start of the school year and announce new programs.

(REad more at the Dispatch)