Some fixes still needed

State lawmakers are on the verge of enacting significant, much-needed reform to Ohio’s weak and ineffective system of charter-school regulation.

A strong version of House Bill 2 could be remembered as the turning point at which the legislature got serious about making charter schools a high-quality educational alternative, rather than just an opportunity for certain donors to make hay.

Unfortunately, the bill, despite a number of excellent provisions, was set back on Tuesday by an amendment that reopens a loophole through which failing charter schools for years have clung to existence. The bill as introduced had language aimed at stopping “sponsor-hopping”; that’s when a bad school with a responsible sponsor knows the sponsor is about to shut it down for its poor performance and, to avoid that fate, quickly finds another, less-ethical sponsor.

The original bill would have stopped this by requiring a poorly performing school to seek approval from the Ohio Department of Education before changing sponsors. But that provision was removed. The amendment says that ODE permission to change sponsors would be required only in a school’s first four years of operation, or if it had changed sponsors any time in the previous five years. This means that a school established longer than four years could change sponsors at will, no matter how poorly the school is performing.

That could allow a badly run charter school to continue spending tax dollars to ill-serve students for years.

If this change isn’t undone by the House before it votes on the bill, the Senate should be sure to do so.

(Read more at the Dispatch).

Senate Passes Contentious Testing and K-12 Deregulation Bill

On March 25, the Ohio Senate passed SB3 along party lines. This omnibus education bill has a number of components. Testing, evaluations, deregulation and some other miscellaneous provisions.

Here's a breakdown of the major components

Deregulation

• Exempts qualified school districts from several requirements of current law regarding teacher qualifications under the third-grade reading guarantee, teacher licensing, mentoring under the Ohio Teacher Residency Program, and class size restrictions.
• Qualifies a school district for the above exemptions if, on its most recent report card, the district received (1) at least 85% of the total possible points for the performance index score, (2) an "A" for performance indicators met, and (3) at least 93% and 95% for the four-year and five-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, respectively.
• Qualifies for an alternative resident educator license an individual who has not completed coursework in the subject area for which the individual is applying to teach.

The provisions are asinine. They eliminate all the regulations that made a district high performing in the first place. What parent wants to send their child to a high performing district where class sizes are very large and being taught by unlicensed amateurs? What district wants that? Even the President of the Senate admits as much in a Dispatch article

“I understand the angst of saying we’re going to open it up willy-nilly to let the superintendent hire his brother to teach physics,” he said. “The superintendent has got to be responsible. The school board that is elected needs to be responsible for that decision.”

Testing

• Limits the cumulative amount of time spent on the administration of state assessments to 2% of the school year beginning with the 2015-2016 school year.
• Limits the cumulative amount of time used for taking practice or diagnostic assessments used to prepare for state assessments to 1% of the school year beginning with the 2015-2016 school year.
• Exempts from the time limitation assessments administered to students with disabilities, diagnostic assessments for students who fail to attain a passing score on the third-grade reading guarantee, assessments used to identify gifted students, and for alternatives to certain end-of-course examinations.
• Eliminates the current requirement that school districts and schools administer diagnostic assessments to students in grades one through three in writing and mathematics, but retains diagnostic assessments for kindergarten students and reading assessments for students in grades one through three beginning with the 2015-2016 school year.
• Requires that school districts and schools administer the English language arts assessment to third graders at least once annually, instead of twice as under current law, beginning with the 2015-2016 school year.

It's a pity that the Senate can't wait for their own panels investigation and recommendations on addressing the testing overload crisis before passing these vague measures.

Evaluations

• Modifies the alternative framework for teacher evaluations, beginning with the 2015-2016 school year, by increasing (to 50%) the teacher performance measure, decreasing (to 35%) the student academic growth measure, and permitting districts and schools to use a combination of specified components for the remainder of each evaluation.
• Prohibits student academic growth from accounting for more than 35% of each principal evaluation, beginning with the 2015-2016 school year, if the State Board of Education prescribes a state framework for principal evaluations.
• Requires the State Board, by July 1, 2015, to take the necessary steps to modify any framework it prescribes for the evaluation of principals in order to comply with the bill's provisions.
• Specifies that if the State Board prescribes an assessment for participants in the Ohio Teacher Residency Program, each district or school may (1) require the participant to pass that assessment, or (2) assess the participant using the participant's annual teacher evaluation.

These measures are heading in the right direction, but still less reliance on student growth measures is needed to create an evaluation framework that will improve educator quality.

Miscellaneous

• Requires the School Facilities Commission, by December 15, 2015, to develop and submit to the General Assembly a legislative proposal assisting school districts to receive funding under the Classroom Facilities Assistance Program.
• Increases the competitive bidding threshold for school building and repair contracts from $25,000 to $50,000.
• Removes a requirement that the State Board adopt a measure, to be reported separately from the district's or school's report card, for the amount of extracurricular services offered to students.

In Teaching Experience Counts, Studies Find

Much of the impetus for new teacher evaluation systems has been based upon the belief that teaching experience is less important than demonstrating competence via student test scores. This belief has become popular among corporate reformers for providing a potential mechanism to remove older more expensive teachers and replace them with cheaper less experienced teachers.

We have published hundreds of articles and studies here at Join the Future pointing out the dangers of relying upon student test scores for the purposes of evaluating teacher quality. Study after study has found the measures to be unreliable and unfair. Worse, it exploded that amount of testing students are having to needlessly endure, and sapped the morale of educators dealing with an unfair system to the point where an exodus of talented educators form the profession is real and happening.

Now comes evidence that the premise itself, that experience doesn't add to quality over time, is fatally flawed.

The evidence comes in the form of 2 new studies. The first in a paper published by Harvard, titled Productivity Returns to Experience in the Teacher Labor Market: Methodological Challenges and New Evidence on Long-Term Career Improvement, the researchers conclude

We find consistent evidence across models that teachers improve most rapidly during their first several years on the job but also continue to improve their ability to raise student test scores beyond the first five years of their careers. This directly contradicts the standard policy conclusion that teachers do not improve after the first three to five years of their career. Finally, we find suggestive evidence across multiple modeling approaches that teachers continue to improve even later in their careers, particularly in mathematics.

The second in a working paper, published by the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER), titled RETURNS TO TEACHER EXPERIENCE: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND MOTIVATION IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, the author finds

We use rich longitudinally matched administrative data on students and teachers in North Carolina to examine the patterns of differential effectiveness by teachers’ years of experience. The paper contributes to the literature by focusing on middle school teachers and by extending the analysis to student outcomes beyond test scores. Once we control statistically for the quality of individual teachers by the use of teacher fixed effects, we find large returns to experience for middle school teachers in the form both of higher test scores and improvements in student behavior, with the clearest behavioral effects emerging for reductions in student absenteeism. Moreover these returns extend well beyond the first few years of teaching. The paper contributes to policy debates by documenting that teachers can and do learn on the job.

These findings should come as no surprise. The claims that experience don't count beyond the first few years was always a spurious argument, running counter to most people's own working life experience and observations.

It is past time to discard corporate education policies designed to cheapen public education, and instead embrace quality through team working, professionalization, and ongoing career training

Value Subtracted

If the ultimate goal is to improve the quality of teaching, depending so much on highly unreliable scores is likely to be counterproductive. A much more effective and proven approach is to promote team-based, data-driven support systems to help teachers become better at their jobs, day in and day out.

Currently, teacher ratings are primarily based on principals’ evaluations, sometimes in combination with parent or student surveys. Few would argue for retaining the status quo, which provides minimal useful feedback to teachers. But embracing standardized test scores because of their purported objectivity is a false promise. Abundant research shows that test scores are a poor proxy for teacher quality and that adopting them will make it harder to implement changes that are proven to help student outcomes.

New York is running behind the national stampede toward incorporating “objective” measures of student performance in evaluating teachers. Drawing from the vernacular of economics and business, such “value-added” measures suggest that the worth of teachers can be derived from comparing how their students’ standardized test scores change over the course of a school year. The Obama administration has used its Race to the Top grants and waivers of No Child Left Behind requirements to push states to adopt value-added provisions, which are championed by well-heeled foundations as well as conservative critics of teachers’ unions. From 2010 to 2013, the number of states requiring that teacher evaluations include standardized test scores soared from 16 to 41, according to the National Council on Teacher Quality. As of September 2013, 35 states’ and the District of Columbia’s public schools require that standardized test scores be counted as either a significant or the most significant factor in teacher evaluations.

(Read more at Slate).

Governor Kasich’s Tax Shift Plan Lacks Voter Support

Via One Ohio Now

Governor Kasich’s recently proposed tax shift is only supported by a quarter of Ohio voters, with support dropping and opposition increasing significantly once plan specifics are divulged. Opposition is broadest and most intense when voters learn how different the bottom three-fifths and wealthiest one percent would be treated by the plan. Resistance to the plan is also fueled, in part, by voters’ fundamental opposition to both tax shifts and cutting state income taxes for the wealthiest Ohioans. Key findings from Global Strategy Group’s recent poll of 504 registered Ohio voters are as follows:

A plurality of voters oppose the tax shift plan initially. When only provided with a brief overview of Governor Kasich’s plan – increasing the state sales tax while cutting the state income tax – a plurality of Ohioans (44%) reject the plan, while only one-quarter of Ohioans (26%) support it. An additional three-inten (31%) say they do not know enough to answer initially.

Resistance to the tax shift increases dramatically once plan specifics and implications are detailed. Opposition soars (jumping 28 points to 72% oppose) when voters learn that under the tax shift plan the bottom three-fifths of taxpayers as a group would actually see an increase in their state and local taxes while the wealthiest one percent of Ohio’s households would receive the largest tax cut. Only one-fifth of voters remain supportive of the plan (18%) after the lopsided impact of the shift is revealed.

• A majority of Democrats (80%), Independents (64%) and Republicans (65%) oppose the plan after hearing this information.
• Opposition exists across political ideologies, with liberals (82%), moderates (75%), and conservatives (65%) all opposing the plan.
• Even a majority of Ohioans with household incomes over $80,000 a year oppose the plan by a wide margin (64% oppose/27% support).

Voters do not support the policy behind the tax shift. When asked about the idea of paying for a reduction in state income taxes with an increase in the state sales tax, three-fifths of voters (62%) say they oppose the idea including majorities across political parties and ideologies, while only 27% are supportive.

Instead, Ohioans want to see taxes increased on the wealthy. Voters are clear in their rejection of the proposal’s heavy tax cuts for the wealthiest Ohioans, as three-fourths of voters (74%) believe Ohio should increase taxes on the wealthiest Ohioans and profitable businesses to ensure they pay their fair share. Only 16% said they would like to see taxes cut for the wealthiest Ohioans and profitable corporations.

And voters would rather see investment in public services than a reduction in the personal income tax rate. When presented with a variety of statements suggesting investment in various state services like public health, education, and public safety over a personal income tax cut, voters agree with all of them.

69% of Voters would rather invest in Ohio’s public schools than cut state income taxes.

All statements receive majority agreement across political party and ideology.

May 2015 School levies and issues

Just 102 school levies and issues will appear on the May 5h ballot this year. This is significantly down from 2014 (149) and 2013 (141). About one third of the requests are for new money.

The table below lists all the issues and levies that will appear on ballots. When you vote, we urge all the supporters of Join the Future to consider supporting their local schools.

County	District	Type	Description
Allen	Elida Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Ashland	Hillsdale Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Ashtabula	Grand Valley Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Auglaize	New Bremen Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Belmont	Shadyside Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Belmont	Shadyside Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Butler	Edgewood City School District	Levy	Substitute
Carroll	Brown Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Clark	Northeastern Local School District	Income Tax	Additional
Clark	Springfield City School District	Levy	Renewal
Coshocton	Coshocton County Joint Vocational School District	Levy	Additional
Crawford	Crestline Exempted Village School District	Income Tax	Additional
Crawford	Wynford Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Crawford	Wynford Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Cuyahoga	Brooklyn City School District	Levy	Renewal
Cuyahoga	Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District	Levy	Additional
Cuyahoga	Garfield Heights City School District	Levy	Renewal
Cuyahoga	Warrensville Heights City School District	Levy	Renewal
Cuyahoga	Westlake City School District	Levy	Additional
Darke	Ansonia Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Defiance	Ayersville Local School District	Combo	Additional
Delaware	Big Walnut Local School District	Levy	Substitute
Fairfield	Walnut Township Local School District	Levy	Additional
Fayette	Miami Trace Local School District	Combo	Additional
Geauga	Kenston Local School District	Combo	Additional
Geauga	West Geauga Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Greene	Beavercreek City School District	Levy	Renewal
Greene	Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local School District	Levy	Replacement
Greene	Xenia Community City School District	Levy	Renewal
Greene	Xenia Community City School District	Income Tax	Renewal
Greene	Yellow Springs Exempted Village School District	Levy	Renewal
Hamilton	Lockland Local School District	Levy	Additional
Hamilton	Northwest Local School District	Combo	Additional
Hamilton	Winton Woods City School District	Bond	N/A
Hancock	Arcadia Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Hancock	McComb Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Hardin	Ridgemont Local School District	Income Tax	Renewal
Henry	Patrick Henry Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Huron	Monroeville Local School District	Levy	Additional
Knox	Mount Vernon City School District	Levy	Renewal
Lake	Lake County School Financing District	Levy	Renewal
Licking	Heath City School District	Levy	Renewal
Licking	North Fork Local School District	Income Tax	Renewal
Licking	Southwest Licking Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Lorain	Avon Local School District	Levy	Additional
Lorain	Clearview Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Lorain	Columbia Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Lorain	Columbia Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Lorain	Firelands Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Lorain	Keystone Local School District	Levy	Additional
Lorain	Sheffield-Sheffield Lake City School District	Levy	Additional
Lucas	Springfield Local School District	Levy	Additional
Mahoning	South Range Local School District	Levy	Additional
Marion	River Valley Local School District	Levy	Additional
Medina	Cloverleaf Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Mercer	Celina City School District	Levy	Renewal
Mercer	Parkway Local School District	Income Tax	Renewal
Miami	Bethel Local School District	Income Tax	Renewal
Miami	Tipp City Exempted Village School District	Levy	Additional
Miami	Troy City School District	Levy	Renewal
Montgomery	Brookville Local School District - I	Levy	Renewal
Montgomery	Brookville Local School District - II	Levy	Renewal
Montgomery	Kettering City School District	Levy	Renewal
Montgomery	Northridge Local School District	Combo	Additional
Montgomery	Valley View Local School District	Income Tax	Renewal
Montgomery	Valley View Local School District	Income Tax	Renewal
Ottawa	Genoa Area Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Ottawa	Genoa Area Local School District	Levy	Additional
Pickaway	Logan Elm Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Pickaway	Logan Elm Local School District	Income Tax	Renewal
Portage	Aurora City School District	Levy	Renewal
Portage	Crestwood Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Ross	Zane Trace Local School District	Income Tax	Additional
Sandusky	Woodmore Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Sandusky	Woodmore Local School District	Income Tax	Additional
Seneca	Seneca East Local School District	Income Tax	Renewal
Shelby	Jackson Center Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Stark	Fairless Local School District	Levy	Additional
Stark	Lake Local School District	Combo	Additional
Summit	Coventry Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Summit	Manchester Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Summit	Manchester Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Summit	Mogadore Local School District	Levy	Additional
Summit	Stow-Munroe Falls City School District	Levy	Renewal
Trumbull	Hubbard Exempted Village School District	Levy	Renewal
Trumbull	Lakeview Local School District	Combo	Additional
Trumbull	Liberty Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Trumbull	Lordstown Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Trumbull	Lordstown Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Trumbull	Maplewood Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Trumbull	Newton Falls Exempted Village School District	Levy	Renewal
Warren	Kings Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Warren	Warren County Joint Vocational School District	Levy	Replacement
Wayne	Norwayne Local School District	Levy	Renewal
Wayne	Orrville City School District	Levy	Renewal
Wayne	Rittman Exempted Village School District	Levy	Renewal
Wayne	Southeast Local School District	Bond	N/A
Williams	Edon Northwest Local School District	Income Tax	Additional
Wood	Bowling Green City School District	Levy	Renewal
Wood	Bowling Green City School District	Levy	Renewal
Wood	North Baltimore Local School District	Income Tax	Renewal
Wood	Rossford Exempted Village School District	Levy	Additional