Budget brings 2 dead policies back to life

The Governor's 4,200 page budget bill (HB 59) sees the reanimation of 2 education policy ideas that were overwhelmingly rejected in the previous legislature due to their unpopular and deeply destructive nature.

The first provision sees the Governor once again push the corporate reform idea of a statewide parent trigger. Here's the change in law he is proposing

Sec. 3302.042. (A) This section shall operate as a pilot project that applies apply to any school of a city, exempted village, or local school district that has been ranked according to performance index score under section 3302.21 of the Revised Code in the lowest five per cent of all public school buildings statewide for three or more consecutive school years and is operated by the Columbus city school district. The pilot project shall commence once the department of education establishes implementation guidelines for the pilot project in consultation with the Columbus city school district.

(B) Except as provided in division (D), (E), or (F) of this section, if the parents or guardians of at least fifty per cent of the students enrolled in a school to which this section applies, or if the parents or guardians of at least fifty per cent of the total number of students enrolled in that school and the schools of lower grade levels whose students typically matriculate into that school, by the thirty-first day of December of any school year in which the school is subject to this section, sign and file with the school district treasurer a petition requesting the district board of education to implement one of the following reforms in the school, and if the validity and sufficiency of the petition is certified in accordance with division (C) of this section, the board shall implement the requested reform in the next school year:

Over objections to this idea in the previous budget, the policy was scaled back to be a pilot program solely affecting Columbus City Schools. Since this "pilot" began, and despite many of the real and perceived problems with Columbus City Schools, not a single attempt has been made to pull "the parent trigger". Despite the failure of this pilot program, and without any working evidence that such a policy mechanism could succeed, the Governor wants to once again spread this community busting idea throughout the entire state.

Here's what people thought of the idea last time around

For further discussion on the failures of parent trigger laws, our previous posting can be found here.

The second zombie policy idea to be resurrected by the Governor was even more solidly rejected when it was introduced as HB136. HB136 sought to eliminate the restrictions on Ohio's current voucher programs (ʺEd Choiceʺ and "Cleveland Scholarship") and instead open participation statewide on the basis of family income. The idea was so bad that even the author of the bill called it a "potential doomsday" for public education. The bill prompted more than 400 boards of education to pass resolutions opposing the idea and the bill died before receiving a floor vote.

Now it's back, under Sec. 3310.032

Sec. 3310.032. (A) A student is an "eligible student" for purposes of the expansion of the educational choice scholarship pilot program under this section if the student's resident district is not a school district in which the pilot project scholarship program is operating under sections 3313.974 to 3313.979 of the Revised Code and the student's family income is at or below two hundred per cent of the federal poverty guidelines, as defined in section 5101.46 of the Revised Code.

(B) In each fiscal year for which the general assembly appropriates funds for purposes of this section, the department of education shall pay scholarships to attend chartered nonpublic schools in accordance with section 3310.08 of the Revised Code. The number of scholarships awarded under this section shall not exceed the number that can be funded with appropriations made by the general assembly for this purpose.

(C) Scholarships under this section shall be awarded as follows:
(1) For the 2013-2014 school year, to eligible students who are entering kindergarten in that school year for the first time;
(2) For each subsequent school year, scholarships shall be awarded to eligible students in the next grade level above the highest grade level awarded in the preceding school year, in addition to the grade levels for which students received scholarships in the preceding school year.

(D) If the number of eligible students who apply for a scholarship under this section exceeds the scholarships available based on the appropriation for this section, the department shall award scholarships in the following order of priority:
(1) First, to eligible students who received scholarships under this section in the prior school year;
(2) Second, to eligible students with family incomes at or below one hundred per cent of the federal poverty guidelines. If the number of students described in division (D)(2) of this section who apply for a scholarship exceeds the number of available scholarships after awards are made under division (D)(1) of this section, the department shall select students described in division
(D)(2) of this section by lot to receive any remaining scholarships.
(3) Third, to other eligible students who qualify under this section. If the number of students described in division (D)(3) of this section exceeds the number of available scholarships after awards are made under divisions (D)(1) and (2) of this section, the department shall select students described in division (D)(3) of this section by lot to receive any remaining scholarships.

(E) A student who receives a scholarship under this section remains an eligible student and may continue to receive scholarships under this section in subsequent school years until the student completes grade twelve, so long as the student satisfies the conditions specified in divisions (E)(2) and (3) of section 3310.03 of the Revised Code.

Once a scholarship is awarded under this section, the student shall remain eligible for that scholarship for the current school year and subsequent school years even if the student's family income rises above the amount specified in division (A) of this section, provided the student remains enrolled in a chartered nonpublic school.

Eligibility for private school vouchers, in a few short paragraphs is opened up statewide, even if students in a school district have schools rated excellent to attend. When traditional public schools are suffering such draconian budget cuts, siphoning tax payer money to private schools cannot be a reasonable policy. This is, in short, a public education privatization provision.

No one trusts Gov Kasich with ed policy

"A new poll shows the majority of Ohioans strongly support their local schools, want funding cuts restored to local schools and governments, and oppose public funding for private and parochial school tuition." ~ that's how a new poll just published describes its findings with regards to education in Ohio.

The poll was commisnios by the Ohio schoo administrators, OSBA, OASBO and BASA.

The poll found that no one trusts the Govenor nor his legislture on education issues.

When it comes to education policies, which of the following would you say that you have the most trust and confidence in to make good decisions? Is it the ...(randomly rotated).....

Governor, State School Superintendent, State Legislature or your local School Board?

63.9% Local School Board
14.5% State School Superintendent
7.4% Unsure/no answer
6.6% Governor
3.3% State Legislature
2.9% Other (volunteered)
1.3% All/combination (volunteered)

Just as bad perhpas is how the Governor and his education privatization policies are being viewed

The poll found nearly two-thirds of Ohioans oppose using public funds to pay tuition for students to attend private and parochial schools.

And finally, despite a constant drumbeat regarding school report cards, people have very mixed views

Fifty percent of Ohioans said it is a good idea to use student test data to rate the quality of school districts, and 41% said it was a bad idea.

Forty-eight percent of Ohioans said their district’s local report card rating was “somewhat” influential

Corporate education reformers are severely out-running where public opinion is at.

As teacher merit pay spreads, one noted voice cries, ‘It doesn’t work’

Merit pay for teachers, an idea kicked around for decades, is suddenly gaining traction.

Fervently promoted by Michelle A. Rhee when she was chancellor of the District’s public schools, the concept is picking up steam from a growing cadre of politicians who think one way to improve the country’s troubled schools is to give fat bonuses to good teachers.

The Obama administration has encouraged states to embrace merit pay, highlighting it as one step that states could take to compete for more than $4 billion in federal funds through the Race to the Top program. Indiana and Florida passed legislation that requires merit pay for teachers; Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) announced a few weeks ago that he wants the same.

The most recent convert: New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I). “This is an idea whose time has come,” Bloomberg declared at the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting last month. “I’m confident that if the teachers are allowed to decide the matter for themselves, they’ll support it in New York City just the way they did here in Washington, D.C.”

What if they’re all wrong?

Meet Daniel Pink, author of the 2009 bestseller “Drive.” He’s a former White House speechwriter, a student of social science, a highly sought-after lecturer and an influential voice when it comes to what motivates Americans in the workplace.

What does he think of merit pay for teachers?

“It doesn’t work.”

[readon2 url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/as-teacher-merit-pay-spreads-one-noted-voice-cries-it-doesnt-work/2012/02/14/gIQAtRpsFR_story.html"]Continue reading[/readon2]

This Daniel Pink TED talk from 2009 has more than 1,000,000 views on YouTube.com. In it, Pink discusses how traditional incentives aren't effective in the modern workplace.

Collaboration in reform is missing

Lifted from the comments of this article at Education Week titled "New Attitudes Shaping Labor-District Relations"

Collaboration with veteran teachers is exactly what is missing in the current reforms. It is refreshing to see that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also supporting this idea.

Our current debate about the failures in education has spent far to much time demonizing teachers and their contributions and they are the "frontline" of improvement.

It is not surprising that Michelle A. Rhee would find collaboration an "overrated" concept. Many of her recommended interventions shared around the country have divided school personnel and made it far more difficult to work together in unity for the same goal, student achievement.

Viewing teacher tenure as the central problem in our schools completely contradicts collaborative efforts. Tenure was written to protect the voice of teachers, not poor teachers.

Some leaders lack the skills and experience to adequately build a case in dismissing poor teachers, that is not the fault of tenure. 75 teachers fired by Michelle Rhee were returned to work with full back pay and not because of tenure. The courts determined the teachers were fired on a whim, for "arbitrary and capricious" reasons.

Ridding the schools of veteran teachers unable to express their voice if not in conformity while replacing them with the inexperience of "Teach for America" candidates is no solution to real problems in the urban classroom.

It is refreshing to see we are discussing the idea of working together to find amicable, reasonable solutions. This should go a long way in building teacher morale which is dissapating by the day, half are gone in the first few years.

What teachers are telling the Governor: Day 3

Day 3 in our on going series of publishing comments provided to the Governor on his request for input on teacher evaluation and merit pay.

Subject: Hmm, how should teachers be paid?

Here's why a merit-based system for teachers has it's flaws:
- Improvements in a student's organization, self-esteem, confidence, social skills, behaviors, etc. are hard to measure.
A teacher may take a challenging social group, and improve things listed above, but still struggle with test scores.
Should they really be penalized for not meeting the test "quota" despite improving a child's life skills?
- Merit-systems have proven to lead to corruption & the abandoning of meaningful lessons for test-taking drills.
Turning a public service into a for-profit business is unfair to the already endless struggles faced by students.
- Who evaluates the teacher? ..The principal? How is there any certainty that he/she will objectively evaluate the teacher free of non-teaching-related criteria?
-Cronyism.
-Competition between teachers who are expected to collaborate for a common good (the student.)
The current process DOES have an evaluation system in place. When teachers perform unsatisfactorily, they can be assigned a "Peer Assistance Review" mentor who observes the struggling/ineffective teacher and provides support & feedback for getting him/her "back on track."

Teachers, like students, each have elements of their personalities & skills that shine above others. If we're adjusting our practices to meet the same performance criteria, how sad that many students will miss out on some of the unique talents that some teachers might be reluctant to share, or that some pioneering teachers might be unwilling to stray from the norm & try new practices.

The fact is, teachers, like a private-sector worker who personally approaches his/her boss about a raise, have already collectively agreed on what they consider a fair wage. Many of the restrictions in SB5 that limit teacher resources & put no limits on class sizes will ultimately make it even more difficult to fulfill whatever criteria is considered. Again, trying to equate successful "bottom-line" business tactics to motivating children with an endless number of variables is definitely NOT in the best interest of the teaching & learning process..
Thanks,

A lot of comments express frustration about fairness and competency of people making education decisions, such as the following

Subject: Idea

Dear Mr. Kasich,
The idea I have about "paying teachers based on performance," is that the system we have in place now works just fine. As a long-term educator with a masters degree and 3 licenses, why shouldn't I make more money than a teacher right out of college with a bachelor's degree? I have put thousands of dollars and years into getting my education and licenses. I should have tenure and job security. I should have a good paycheck and retirement. I should have good benefits now and in my retirement.

What about paying Charter and Private schools based on how they do on the Ohio Achievement Tests? Right, they don't even have to take it, so I think that would be a good place for YOU to start.

Your thoughts on changing our education system are insulting, and just show how little you know about our education system in general. The State of Ohio has the responsibility to educate our children, and our public education system does it the best. Maybe you need to review your responsibilities as a governor and provide more money to our public education system that is doing well; and would do even better if half of our money wasn't dumped into Private and Chartered schools.

Subject: Ideas for New Pay System

Remove ALL politicans from making ANY of the decisions for pay. Policitians have already made a mockery of the teaching profession and have absolutely shown no respect for educators. Obviously the policitians who voted for this nonsense have never taught one minute otherwise they would understand their are way to many variables to even suggest merit.

If this nonsense continues, ONLY educators should make the decision NOT policitans.

Finally for today, there are one or two comments that are supportive of the governor's efforts, even if their suggestions are, shall we say, "different"

Subject: Innovative Teacher Salary Idea

Hi Governor Kasich!

Depending on what amount each school district spends per pupil, allow the students $1000 to interview the teachers, and "hire" the one they want. Teachers may present the students with their educational portfolio - past student's test scores, how the teacher sets up the class, what the teacher's expectations of the student are, etc. The students then put all their money into the pot for that teacher, and if they reach their goals for the year - AYP, test scores, attendance - the teacher get's their students' bonuses. Much like "The Apprentice" with The Donald - the teacher who performs the best gets the best bonus. The students feel ownership of their teacher, and the teacher only gets beyond their base salary for bringing their class to victory. Also, the best teachers can take more than just 24 students - up to 50 students - thereby increasing their chance for a bonus (but also getting more kids in front of the best teachers) The teachers who are not "hired" by the students, have the smallest class sizes, the least chance at bonuses, and eventually are weeded out.

I think you're awesome! Keep up the good work!

Is Gifted Education a Bright Idea?

I keep getting struck wondering wether it's the measurements that are the problem, rather than the measured outcomes. Maybe it's harder to measure progress than looking at some test results. Either way, this interesting report adds another question mark to the idea of using high stakes testing to make high stakes decisions with teaching careers. If we can't adequately measure progress with the brightest students, taught by the best teachers, that doesn't say a lot about the whole ill-concieved enterprise.

A new working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, in Cambridge, Mass., evaluated the effectiveness of both in-class gifted programs and magnet schools for more than 8,000 middle school students in an unnamed Southwestern school district of more than 200,000 students.

The University of Houston researchers who conducted the study found that students in these programs were more likely than other students to do in-depth coursework with top teachers and high-performing peers. Yet students who barely met the 5th grade cutoff criteria to enter the gifted programs fared no better academically in 7th grade, after a year and a half in the program, than did similarly high-potential students who just missed qualifying for gifted identification.

"You're getting these better teachers; you're getting these higher-achieving students paired up with you," said Scott A. Imberman, an economics professor and a study coauthor. "To our surprise, what happened was very little."

Here's the paper.

Is Gifted Education a Bright Idea?