Real consequences of ‘school choice’

For years, policy initiatives stemming from right-wing belief tanks have been wrapped in the rhetoric of positive outcomes that are, in fact, the complete opposite of what the measures are really intended to do.

A bill called Clear Skies that called for more pollution. Another called Healthy Forests offered incentives for cutting down valuable trees. No Child Left Behind, perhaps the crowning glory of duplicity, worsened the education of disadvantaged children it was purported to magically improve.

But without a doubt the most enduring of these wolf-wrapped-in-sheep’s-clothing ideas is the promise of “school choice” that’s been promoted to parents since the presidencies of Nixon and Reagan.

Sold as a way to “empower” parents to improve the education attainment of their children, school choice initiatives take on many forms, including vouchers, “scholarships,” and tax credits. But the most radical form of school choice is the so-called “parent trigger.”

The parent trigger has been relentlessly marketed to parents and policy makers as an “empowerment” that enables parents to conduct a petition campaign in their community to fire their school’s staff and change its governance. This has all the rhetoric of democratic activism – a majority of the parents deciding “what’s best” for the education of their children. But what are the results?

So far, the trigger has only been carried out to its fullest extent in one school: Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, California. A new video “Parent Triggers: Another Reform Misfires,” (see below) released by the Education Opportunity Network, recently looked at the results of the parent trigger in Adelanto and found that rather then uniting parents in doing what’s best for children, the parent trigger brought deception, division and disruption to the community.

Thus, parent trigger bills join the ranks of other school choice schemes that are proliferating across the country. And rather than giving parents more control of the trajectory of their children, these policies are leaving more parents overwhelmed and powerless.

So what should parents expect when the parent trigger or any other school choice scheme comes to town?

In New Orleans – perhaps America’s choiciest school district, where 70 percent of students attend charter schools – most of the schools remain the lowest performing in one of the lowest performing states, and parent activists have come to the conclusion that choice means “a choice to apply” while still remaining “trapped” in the same lousy schools.

A recent article in The Washington Post told the story of how the District of Columbia’s complex school choice landscape has led some parents to hire an educational consultant to navigate the public school system — and this is being seen by some as the wave of the future in districts around the country. More than 40 percent of the District’s 80,000 students attend charter schools. Even when parents do choose traditional public schools for their children, “more than half do not attend their assigned neighborhood school.”

“It’s just totally overwhelming,” one parent was quoted as saying in the Post story.

And the results? D.C. schools have among the lowest high school graduation rates in the country and the largest achievement gap of any urban school district.

According to this New York Times story, parents in New York City face a similar, if not more daunting, “school choice maze” that leaves thousands of children “shut out” of any real choice at all. Parents trying to navigate the complex system end up “feeling inadequate, frustrated and angry.”

Not to worry, school choice advocates reassure us. We’re told, as in this article at greatschools.org, to rejoice in the fact that while “it used to be that when it was time to find a school for the kids, most Americans looked no further than the neighborhood school.” Now we have a wonderful “open” system where our precious little darlings get to “compete” against the precious little darlings of our friends and neighbors.

Just make sure you’re one of the “smart parents” who knows how to “work the system.”

How could choice possibly lead to fewer options for parents?

[readon2 url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/12/real-consequences-of-school-choice/"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

Cleveland teachers advance the way forward

According to an excellent news report in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Cleveland Teachers Union (CTU) just wiped away all of Frank Jackson's empty rhetoric for why he would not involve teachers in the development of his plan, by presenting a clear set of workable alternatives, that advances the way forward for Cleveland schools..

Whether educators express it through massive surveys, or actual deeds, they continue to prove a deep commitment to reforms that lead to quality learning for students. Cleveland teachers, with their clear set of alternative, have demonstrated that too.

Just a week ago, less than 24 hours after Jackson released his plan, he was complaining that he didn't have a response from CTU. We could be petty and point out that Jackson has now had CTU's proposals for nearly a week and still hasn't gotten around to reading them.

"I'm not in a negotiation or compromise mode," Jackson said. "I'm in an outcome mode. If I'm wrong in how I'm proposing to get there, tell me how I should do it. I'll do anything that gets us the outcome."

Jackson was unwilling to say whether CTU's plan offered the kind of change he wants, but said that "my expectation is that there is something that we have a deeper dive on in terms of conversation and details."

School district Chief Executive Officer Eric Gordon said he has also not had time to review the plan in detail but is "hopeful."

We suggest he and his team now make that a priority. The alternatives put forward by CTU are based upon research and principles that work, and provide for a fair way forward. If Jackson is unable to begin to compromise now he has a credible and clear way forward, it should become crystal clear to all that his objections are political, not pedagogical.

Below is a table of comparisons between current policy, Jackson's plan and the way forward presented by Cleveland teachers.

Seniority
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
Until the summer of 2013, seniority is the deciding factor in layoffs and recalls. Teachers with short-term, or limited contracts, are laid off first, but based on seniority, then teachers with tenure, or continuing contracts, are laid off based on seniority. When CTU's contract expires in 2013, a 2011 law makes teacher evaluations the deciding factor. Teachers with limited contracts will be laid off based on evaluations, then teachers with continuing contracts based on evaluations. Seniority is used only as a tiebreaker between teachers in the same pool.	Mirrors the budget bill by making teacher performance the main factor in layoffs and recalls, but removes the distinction between a continuing and limited contract except as a tiebreaker. Also adds other factors to determine the ranking of teachers, including recent teaching assignments and specialties.	Would create eight "buckets" that would divide teachers first by their evaluation (ratings of 1 to 4, with 1 being the lowest) and then by seniority. Teachers with the lowest rating and a limited contract would be laid off first, followed by teachers with the lowest rating and a continuing contract, then teachers with the second-lowest rating and a limited contract, then the second-lowest rating and a continuing contract, and so on.
Merit pay
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The contract pays teachers based on their experience and education level, with bonuses for extra duties. Last year's state budget bill required districts to include teacher ratings in their salary schedules but did not specify to what degree.	Jackson wants to make performance a major part of a "differentiated compensation" plan for teacher pay that pays more for higher performance, extra duties or teaching subjects where there is a teacher shortage or in troubled schools. The proposed law would mandate that this plan prevail over any new contract.	The union has issues with the wording of this part of the legislation. It did not raise objections to the compensation plan itself.
Evaluations
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The district is testing a plan that mirrors statewide requirements to have an evaluation system that measures teachers half on academic growth of students and half on other factors. The state requires a plan for all districts by the 2013-14 school year, but Cleveland is a year ahead of that timetable.	Reaffirms that plan but offers some flexibility in timing.	Teachers and the district mostly agree. Teachers want any law changes on evaluation to include extra training and support for teachers who fall short, and to be sure that evaluators are properly trained. They also don't want to jeopardize the federal Race to The Top grant the district and others are using to develop the plan.
Firing
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The district can seek to fire a teacher for poor teaching after either a year-long review process by the principal, or after following that year with a year of peer review and assistance through a system the union has helped set up. Teachers can also be fired for other behavior.	Would allow a teacher to be fired for having the lowest evaluation rating two years in a row. Jackson also wants the system to move faster. His plan would give teachers short-term contracts that the district can simply choose not to renew.	The teachers union believes the current plan or one developed by its national union is just as fast and effective as Jackson's. Its plan includes help for teachers with low performance ratings before they are fired.
New collective bargaining agreements
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The old contract between CTU and the district guides all new negotiations, and the contract includes several rules on specific issues that roll over in the new contracts.	Jhrows out the previous contract and all previous rules and would start negotiations from scratch. If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, the district could impose a contract rather than reverting to the old one.	The union objects entirely to this proposal. It proposes instead creating a new contract that starts from scratch for three specialty schools within the district, Campus International and two MC2 STEM schools, and it would be in place by July 2013. Those schools would be exempt from layoff and recall rules that apply to the rest of the district.
Tenure/continuing contracts
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
Teachers can apply for a continuing contract after three or seven years of service, depending on when they were hired, and their removal becomes much harder after that. If teachers meet experience and continuing education rules, continuing contracts are generally granted.	All new teachers would not be eligible for continuing contracts and existing teachers would have strict limitations on applying for them. Even then, continuing contracts would be granted at the discretion of the CEO and school board.	The union completely opposes the plan, saying that if the district does not offer job security, it will be at a recruiting and hiring disadvantage.
Reforming low-performing schools
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
The law allows reallocation of resources, redesigning academic programs or giving extra assistance to students. The district and CTU must negotiate any changes in work rules or hours. The two sides have reached agreements for some schools in the last few years.	The district CEO would have wide authority to close or reshape a school. The CEO could lay off or fire teachers or change the length of the school year or day in order to reorganize the school.	The teachers union wants to forbid the layoff or firing of teachers just because they work in a low-performing school, regardless of their individual performance. It proposes turning low performing schools into "New Generation" schools that would focus on failing students in the third through seventh grades. Those schools could have a year-round calendar, an extended school day and work with social services agencies.
Union presence in district-sponsored charter schools
Current	Jackson's plan	CTU proposal
If a district converts a school to a charter school, a 2011 law allows it to exempt the school from any unions as soon as the current contract for that union expires.	Jackson sought this change last year so his plan does not propose anything further.	The union wants to repeal the rule. It also wants more leeway to try to organize teachers in any charter school sponsored by a district. This would let teachers at the district-sponsored Breakthrough charter schools talk with CTU without fear of reprisals and possibly unionize.

Bad charter sponsors, bad policy

It comes as little surprise to anyone who follows the development of what some call Ohio education policy to learn that Ohio's charter school laws have serious flaws.

The Ohio Department of Education has just released their charter school sponsor rankings. As StateImpact notes

The sponsor role is different from the role of a charter school operator. Charter school operators, which include both for-profit and non-profit groups, manage schools’ day-to-day operations while sponsors are supposed to play more of an oversight role.

These rankings are important because under HB153, sponsors who fall into the bottom 20% cannot authorize any more charter schools until their schools improve. LSC (page 216):

(New R.C. 3314.016)
The act prohibits a community school sponsor from sponsoring any additional schools, if it (1) is not in compliance with statutory requirements to report data or other information to the Department of Education or (2) is ranked in the lowest 20% of all sponsors on an annual ranking of sponsors by their composite performance index scores. The composite performance index score, which must be developed by the Department, is a measure of the academic performance of students enrolled in community schools sponsored by the same entity. Presumably, if a sponsor is subject to the prohibition due only to its ranking, it may sponsor additional schools if it later raises its ranking above the lowest 20%.

We have published the ranking list below. People who posses the ability to think critically will already have concluded 2 things about this prescriptive law.

1. Marion City with a performance score of 69.2 is barred from authorizing any more charters, while Lorain City with a performance score of just 69.4 can continue to operate as it just misses the 20% cut.
2. No matter what performance sponsors have there will always be a bottom 20%

Why didn't the law specify an actual performance measure? The legislature saw fit to do exactly this for teachers under SB5, but not for sponsors of charter schools.

To complicate matters further, the Ohio Department of Education which is tasked by law to create these rankings, will also be getting back into the business of being a charter school sponsor. A task it once had taken away from it because of abysmal performance that made Ohio charter schools the laughing stock of the nation.

Now, under HB153, ODE will not only be responsible for sponsoring charters again - but producing the rankings - including their very own. This doesn't strike us at Join the Future as a very wise situation.

Will ODE be able to exert enough independence between its sponsorship role and its evaluation of sponsors, even if its own performance is substandard as it was in the past? That's an obvious question that should not have to be asked if state education policy was properly thought through and developed in a collaborative manner.

In the meantime, we can take solace in the fact (as the Disptach reports) that Mansfield, Marion, Ridgedale, Rittman, Upper Scioto Valley and Van Wert school districts; the Richland Academy; and the educational service centers in Hardin and Portage counties cannot open any more charter schools.

Ohio Charter School Sponsor Rankings

HB 153 Teacher Retesting Provision Facts

House Bill 153 contains a provision for retesting teachers in the lowest ranked 10 percent of all public schools (Sec. 3319.58 below).

Sec. 3319.58
(A) As used in this section, "core subject area" has the same meaning as in section 3319.074 of the Revised Code.

(B) Each year, the board of education of each city, exempted village, and local school district, governing authority of each community school established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code, and governing body of each STEM school established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code with a building ranked in the lowest ten per cent of all public school buildings according to performance index score, under section 3302.21 of the Revised Code, shall require each classroom teacher teaching in a core subject area in such a building to register for and take all written examinations prescribed by the state board of education for licensure to teach that core subject area and the grade level to which the teacher is assigned under section 3319.22 of the Revised Code. However, if a teacher who takes a prescribed examination under this division passes that examination and provides proof of that passage to the teacher's employer, the teacher shall not be required to take the examination again for three years, regardless of the performance index score ranking of the building in which the teacher teaches. No teacher shall be responsible for the cost of taking an examination under this division.

(C) Each district board of education, each community school governing authority, and each STEM school governing body may use the results of a teacher's examinations required under division (B) of this section in developing and revising professional development plans and in deciding whether or not to continue employing the teacher in accordance with the provisions of this chapter or Chapter 3314. or 3326. of the Revised Code.

However, no decision to terminate or not to renew a teacher's employment contract shall be made solely on the basis of the results of a teacher's examination under this section until and unless the teacher has not attained a passing score on the same required examination for at least three consecutive administrations of that examination.

The Facts:

• According to ODE, this law will not take effect until the 2012-2013 school year because the ranking system to determine the lowest 10% of districts is not required to be in place until September 2012.
• Under 3319.074, the core subject areas are defined as follows:
  “Core subject area” means reading and English language arts, mathematics, science, foreign language, government, economics, fine arts, history, and geography.
• The “current examinations prescribed by the state board of education for licensure to teach that core subject area” are:
  a) Praxis II content exam(s) AND Principles of Learning and Teaching for all content areas except world languages
  b) American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL/LTI) exams (2) for world languages AND Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching
  c) Information about these exams and links to the testing companies can be found at the ODE website here.
  
• Every teacher would have to take a minimum of two exams
• There are only seven Praxis II testing dates per year, and not all tests are administered on all dates. Certain tests are only offered three or four times per year. It may take multiple days for teachers to take all required tests.
• Tests are administered primarily via paper and pencil at testing sites throughout the state. Some tests are moving to computer-based administration, but still must be taken at a designated testing center. Testing sites would likely not be able to handle the thousands of teachers who would be required to take tests beginning in 2012.
• Fees for taking the Praxis exams are as follows:
  a) $50 registration fee charged once per testing year
  b) Praxis II computer-based tests range from $50-150 per test
  c) Praxis II paper-delivered tests range from $65-90 with most being $80
  d) The average cost for a teacher taking ONE content test and the Principles of Learning and Teaching is $230. Teachers with multiple certificates/licenses teaching in more than one core area will cost more.
  e) World language teachers will have to take the Praxis II PLT ($50 registration + $90 test = $140) in addition to the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview ($134) and Writing Proficiency Test ($65) for a total of $339
  
• By using this year’s performance index scores and identifying the lowest 10% of buildings and then identifying teachers in those buildings who taught in the core areas last year, some sources estimate that over 6,000 teachers would need to be retested.
• By law, teachers are not responsible for the cost of taking these exams, so districts in the lowest 10% will be put under the additional financial burden or retesting their teachers.

This new law is bad because...

• Requiring teachers in core subjects in the lowest 10% of buildings to be retested places a huge financial burden on districts already struggling with budget cuts in these tough economic times.
• Retesting teachers wastes planning and preparation time and takes the focus off of the classroom and students when we need to focus on the essentials-- a high quality education for all Ohio students.
• Testing teachers does not help them improve their performance. Ongoing formative feedback that addresses the complexities of the teaching profession and individualized support allows teachers to improve their performance.
• The tests required for licensure are not designed to diagnose problems teaching performance and do not reflect the complexity of interacting with diverse students. They are only valid to measure knowledge of specific subjects that new K–12 educators will teach, as well as general and subject-specific teaching skills and knowledge.
• Requiring that all teachers in core areas be tested in identified buildings is unfair. Master Teachers, National Board Certified teachers and other teachers who have demonstrated practice at an advanced or accomplished level would be forced to take the tests by law. And, teachers who were never required to take these exams for certification or licensure will now be forced to take them by law.
• Testing centers will not be able to handle the huge increase in the number of test-takers this law requires.
• This retesting provision drains money away from districts and gives it to large testing corporations.

The cost of Charters

One slide presented last night at the Dublin budget town hall really stood out.

Dublin City Schools Budget Presentation - May 11th, 2011

Dublin 

Schools
 only receive ~
$995 
per 
student 
from
 the 
state, but if a student in their district transfers to a charter school $5,732 is taken to pay for that. That's a disproportionate subtraction and one of the direct costs of so-called "Choice". In Dublin it's costing between $300,000 and $400,000 alone.

What's more baffling about this continued policy is that Dublin City Schools are rated Excellent with distinction and have one of the lowest percentages of expenditure on administration per pupil. There's simply no need for charter schools to suck money away from high performing districts like this, yet we allow it.