Would You Let An Unlicensed Doctor Operate On You?

We highlighted some dangerous deregulation policies in SB3, a bill recently passed by the Ohio Senate. One of those policies would allow high performing districts to employ unlicensed "teachers". Dr. Renee Middleton, Dean of the Patton College of Education, Ohio University issued this warning:

Americans in the twenty-first century accept without question the assumption that doctors must be licensed to practice medicine. But that, of course, has not always been the case, especially in the United States. In the early 1880s, West Virginia became the first state to enact and effectively implement a genuinely restrictive medical license law.

Education and Medicine are at their best when qualified practitioners meet and exceed state standards. That is why standards are so important. When some is “licensed to practice,” it lets the public know that the individual has met a “minimal” standard of practice. While students can fluctuate in their ability, teachers and standards are a constant – or at least they should be. A high bar must be set for those who wish to be “licensed for practice.” Ohio has stood on that belief for over a century.

Unfortunately, Senate Republicans are attempting to redefine minimal or acceptable “standards of practice.” Sen. Cliff Hite (R-Findlay) and Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina) are attempting to pass SB3, a bill that deregulates education and the need for a “license to practice.” SB3 would allow for “high-performing school districts” to be exempt from hiring teachers with licenses and credentials currently required throughout the state. Based on data involving arbitrary graduation rates and random performance indicators, roughly 20 percent of school districts in Ohio would qualify as high-performing, with another 50 districts reportedly close to exempt status.

Hite and Faber fail to realize that knowledge of a subject – or even expertise in a subject – does not in and of itself qualify someone to teach. Teaching has a pedagogical science behind it.

If the state does not allow unlicensed drivers on our roads, why would it want to allow unlicensed teachers in our classrooms? Would you, as a parent, send your child to an unlicensed doctor simply because that doctor works at a hospital that is considered high-performing? No, you would not. Teaching is not surgery, but it is brain science, and not everyone is trained or skilled to do it.

If “high-performing” school districts hire non-licensed teachers, they will not be high-performing for very long. In fact, if a district slips below the “high-performing” threshold, its exemptions would be taken away – meaning non-licensed teachers would be teaching in underperforming schools. There simply cannot be sustained excellence without a commitment to professionally licensed teachers.

Through most of the nineteenth century, anyone could call themselves a doctor and could practice medicine on whatever basis they wished. An 1889 U.S. Supreme Court case, Dent v. West Virginia, effectively transformed medical practice from an unregulated occupation to a legally recognized profession.

Teaching is a profession! Federal legislation requires colleges of education to be accredited based on a nationally based set of standards. Ohio requires teachers to be “licensed to practice.” Why? Because teaching is a profession. SB3 would take us back to the 1800s and allow anyone to teach. Do we really want to go there? Studying how individuals learn helps teacher candidates’ transition from sitting in a classroom to standing in front of one. It teaches them how to relate material to students and positively influence student-learning outcomes and academic achievement. It allows them to hit the ground running in a way in which those without the background, training, experience, and pedagogical skills simply cannot do.

Just as we have standards for our students, we must have standards for the profession of teaching. Hiring a non-licensed professional to teach a class may seem innocuous, but it would set a dangerous precedent. Hiring someone without established prerequisites allows for a subjective, “good enough” mindset that will only hurt our state and our students in the long run.

I strongly encourage our state representatives to vote no on SB3, and I strongly encourage you to call your legislator and tell him or her that teaching is a profession and that our children deserve to be taught by professionals.

Respectfully,

Renée A. Middleton, Ph.D., Dean
The Gladys W. & David H. Patton College of Education
Ohio University

Revolving Door Of Teachers Costs Schools Billions Every Year

Every year, thousands of fresh-faced teachers are handed the keys to a new classroom, given a pat on the back and told, "Good luck!"

Over the next five years, though, nearly half of those teachers will transfer to a new school or leave the profession altogether — only to be replaced with similarly fresh-faced teachers.

We've been reporting this month on the pipeline into teaching — and hearing from teachers themselves about why they stay. Richard Ingersoll, who has studied the issue for years, says there's a revolving door of teacher turnover that costs school districts upwards of $2.2 billion a year.

Richard Ingersoll is a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies teacher turnover and retention. He says the constant teacher churn costs school districts more than $2.2 billion annually.

One of the reasons teachers quit, he says, is that they feel they have no say in decisions that ultimately affect their teaching. In fact, this lack of classroom autonomy is now the biggest source of frustration for math teachers nationally.

I spoke with Ingersoll to ask him about his research and what schools can do to fix the problem.

(Read more at NPR)

Voters Everywhere Reject Vouchers

According to data compiled by Edd Doerr of Americans for Religious Liberty, voters in every state when confronted with the opportunitity to weigh in on school vouchers and tax payer funeded private school issues have rejected the idea every time. Here are the results:

• Nebraska 1970 Tax code vouchers 57-43 against
• Maryland 1972 Vouchers 55-45 against
• Michigan 1978 Vouchers 74-26 against
• Washington, DC 1981 Tax code vouchers 89-11 against
• Utah 1988 Tax code vouchers 70-30 against
• Oregon 1990 Tax code vouchers 67-33 against
• Colorado 1992 Vouchers 67-33 against
• California 1993 Vouchers 70-30 against
• Washington State 1996 Vouchers 64-36 against
• Colorado 1998 Tax code vouchers 60-40 against
• Michigan 2000 Vouchers 69-31 against
• California 2000 Vouchers 71-29 against
• Utah 2007 Vouchers 62-38 against
• Florida 2012 Vouchers 55-45 against
• Hawaii 2014 Vouchers 55-45 against
• Nebraska 1966 Bus transportation 57-43 against (%)
• Idaho 1972 Bus transportation 57-43 against
• New York 1967 Constitutional change to allow tax aid 72-28 against
• Michigan 1970 Constitutional change to allow tax aid 57-43 against
• Oregon 1972 Constitutional change to allow tax aid 61-39 against
• Washington State 1975 Constitutional change to allow tax aid 60-39 against
• Alaska 1976 Constitutional change to allow tax aid 54-46 against
• Massachusetts 1986 Constitutional change to allow tax aid 70-30 against
• Maryland 1974 Auxiliary services 56-43 against
• Missouri 1976 Auxiliary services 60-40 against
• Massachusetts 1982 Auxiliary services 62-38 against
• South Dakota 2004 Auxiliary services 53-47 against
• California 1982 Textbook aid 61-39 against

Ohio charter-school-reform bill does not go far enough

This is the year when key officials -- from Gov. John Kasich and Ohio Democratic and Republican state lawmakers to opponents of charter schools and even some charter-school proponents -- had promised to reform the state's troubled charter-school system.

But the recent passage of House Bill 2, which allows sponsor-hopping among established charter schools and rejects Ohio Auditor Dave Yost's proposal that operating management companies should have to report some of their finances signals that, for all of the grand talk, Ohio's charter school reform may end up being far from comprehensive or significant.

The Senate should rise to the rescue. Ohio Sen. Peggy Lehner, a Republican from the Dayton-area, will present her bill soon and it must do what HB 2 has failed to do: Rein in charter schools so that youngsters get the best education possible and so that taxpayers can see where their money is going.

HB 2 does have some decent provisions -- it limits school leases to no more than 5 percent above market value, and forbids charter sponsors with the lowest ratings from the state from overseeing schools.

But it doesn't get to the core of the problems of Ohio's charter school system -- a system that spends hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars per year on schools subject to little public scrutiny or oversight and that are, in most parts of the state, even weaker academically than their public-school counterparts.

(Read more at Cleveland.com)

House passes bill to reform Ohio charter schools

Attention on overhauling Ohio’s oft-criticized charter-school laws now turns to the Senate, where Democrats, state Auditor Dave Yost and charter supporters hope to see additions made to a bill that the House passed on Thursday with broad support.

House Bill 2 includes roughly three dozen changes aimed at transparency, accountability and oversight of charter schools that are spending upward of $1 billion a year in state taxpayer money to educate 100,000-plus students.

“There is no such thing as a perfect bill. But this is a good bill that moves us in the right direction,” said Rep. Mike Dovilla, R-Berea, a prime sponsor.

Dovilla said the bill is the most-comprehensive charter-school legislation in a dozen years. A wave of recent studies and media reports have highlighted issues with charter-school academic performance, attendance counts, lease deals and lack of transparency.

In addition to the House bill, Gov. John Kasich included charter-school provisions in his two-year budget, and Sen. Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering, has held informal meetings with experts to craft legislation likely to be introduced early next week.

(Read more at Dispatch)

How money is corrupting charter school purpose

The new charter school movement is a compilation of money, marketing and the mistaken use of the free market theory, which is suppressing the schools’ founding ideology that supported innovative, energetic educational think tanks and lab schools to enrich and inform public education.

The new charter school movement lacks innovation, has minimal quality control, promotes conflicts of interest, is a breeding ground for fraud and makes for-profit corporations wealthy on our tax dollars.

I supported the creation of charter schools. However, the charter school movement has morphed into a money machine and is bad for altruistic charters as well as traditional public schools. I think parents deserve choice. However, I also believe we should strive for quality choice, which means we need a strong authorizing board that values quality and sets high standards.

The word has gotten out that charter schools are huge money-making machines. Corporate and education management companies are raking in millions from taxpayers. Taxpayers, regardless of whether they have children in schools, might want to start paying attention to the huge amount of taxpayer dollars these companies are consuming with absolutely no transparency and no accountability. Hard-earned dollars are disappearing into a black hole.

Read more here