provisions

Mixed messages from legislature

Greg Mild at Plunderbund delves into the 3rd grade reading guarantee and discovers that it's provisions could potentially cost teachers $17,000 out of their own pocket.

The same Ohio legislators who sought to reduce teacher compensation through Senate Bill 5 last year and who have cut public school funding (including to the Ohio Department of Education), included a requirement in the 3rd Grade Guarantee that will cost individual teachers over $17,000 each — most likely an out-of-pocket expense.
[...]
Absent the revisions (where was ODE when this law was being passed in the first place?), all teachers working with students who fall under this law’s provisions will be required to have a reading endorsement as part of their teaching license.

Greg goes on to detail the costs.

But, let's back away from the details for a moment to look at the underlying policy itself. If the legislature truly believes that licensure is not one of the best ways to measure a teachers effectiveness, why then are they relying upon a license in the case of the 3rd grade reading guarantee?

Why are they not instead mandating that a principal assigns the most highly rated teacher to the task of providing 3rd grade reading remediation, rather than some potential slacker with a license?

Talk about mixed messages. Why would any teacher bother to go to the time and expense of getting this license, when there is clear policy that it bares no relationship to pay in the eyes on the legislature?

SB316 analysis

The education portion of the mid biennium review (MBR), SB316, has now been completed. Below is the synopsis document produced by Ohio's legislative services commission (LSC).

Some of the highlights and lowlights:

  • Third-grade reading guarantee – retention
  • Requires the State Board of Education to determine the "cut" score, progressively adjusting it upwards until the retention requirements apply to students who do not receive at least a "proficient" score. Prohibits the State Board from designating a level lower than "limited." Not later than December 31, 2013, requires the State Board to submit to the General Assembly recommended changes to the scoring ranges of the state achievement assessments necessary for the successful implementation of the common core curriculum and assessments in the 2014-2015 school year.

    It's a huge unfunded mandated (only a paltry $13 million was attached to this effort), with only a few exceptions for students carved out. We suspect this provision will be revisited in the very near future once legislators start hearing from angry parents.

    Also included int he law is a section that, not later than February 28, 2013, the State Board of Education and the Early Childhood Advisory Council jointly to develop legislative recommendations on the state's policies on literacy education of children from birth to third grade. From birth!

  • District and building academic performance ratings
  • This didn't make the bill. The legislature received a lot of push back from a broad range of interests that didn't like the idea of downgraded schools in short order, right before tougher common core standards were also to be introduced.

  • Performance indicators for dropout prevention and recovery programs
  • These are some of the worse charter schools in the country, not just the state. They have avoided accountability for poor performance for a long time. Initially SB316 contained provisions to hold them accountable, however those provisions were also stripped and replaced with provisions requiring the adoption of performance indicators for dropout prevention and recovery programs operated by school districts and community schools with provisions for a separate rating system specifically for community schools that operate dropout prevention and recovery programs, to be used beginning with the 2014-2015 school year. No rush there, then.

  • Reports of district and school spending
  • This provision initially passed in the original budget has been delayed 12 months.

  • Teacher evaluations
  • This section of SB316 fixed a lot of the ridiculous provisions contained in HB153. You now have to actually be in a classroom at least 50% of the time to be covered, test scores of students who are absent more than 60 days (!) won't be counted, nor those defined as habitually truant. the new law makes quite a few structural changes and some nuanced changes. We urge educators to take a little time to read this entire section (page 19, thru 21)

  • Teacher retesting
  • Remember the provision that would have required all teachers in the bottom 10% of schools to retake the PRAXIS test? That's gone, replaced with a different retesting provision. It now applies, beginning with the 2015-2016 school year, to teachers employed by school districts when the teacher has been rated "ineffective" on evaluations for two of the three most recent years. (Retains the law applying the requirement to teachers employed by community schools and STEM schools when the teacher's building is ranked by performance index score in the lowest 10% of all public schools.) The law also adds that if a teacher employed by a school district passes the required exams, the teacher, at the teacher's own expense, must complete professional development targeted at the deficiencies identified in the teacher's evaluations. The district may terminate the teacher if the teacher (a) does not complete the professional development or (b) receives an "ineffective" rating on the teacher's next evaluation after the professional development.

  • Nonrenewal of teacher and administrator contracts
  • Extends the deadlines for a school district or educational service center (ESC) to notify a teacher that the person's contract will not be renewed for the following school year, from April 30 to June 1.

  • Charter schools
  • There is a host of provisions affecting charter schools starting on page 38 that we are still digesting.

SB316 bill analysis

A Democrat's bold plan to force GOP to re-legislate SB5

Frank Jackson may actually be a political mastermind, even if his roots are firmly planted in the corporate education camp's garden. His education "reform" plan contains provisions ripped right out of the pages of SB5.

Part of Jackson's plan asks the legislature to eliminate seniority as the sole factor in employment decisions and to allow the district to institute a merit pay plan. The changes would apply only to Cleveland as the state's sole district under mayoral control.

Both provisions were part of Senate Bill 5, a controversial collective bargaining law that would have affected public employees statewide. The law, which was put to a referendum as Issue 2 on the November ballot by a labor coalition backed by Democrats, was stomped by Ohio voters.

Rep. Mike Foley and state Sen. Nina Turner, both Cleveland Democrats, said they weren't ready to endorse what Turner called "Senate Bill 5 Lite." But both said they were keeping an open mind.

Mayor Jackson is calling for provisions that voters overwhelmingly repealed to be re-legislated by Ohio's Republican controlled general assembly.

Public Policy Polling just released their latest poll results of Ohio and found

After a little over a year on the job, Ohioans appear to be having voter’s remorse over the election of Republican John Kasich as Governor. Kasich holds a 53% job disapproval rating compared to just 33% approval. Independents disapprove by a 38-47 rate, just 9% of Democrats approve compared to 80% who do not, and 25% of Republicans disapprove while only 58% approve.

25% of Republicans disapprove. A majority of that disapproval comes as a result of the bitter SB5 fight. Those workers regardless of party, seemingly have long memories and are not ready to forget their betrayal. The thought of re-legislating pieces of SB5 might not be so appealing once heads clear.

The picture is further complicated for a number of Republican incumbents. For example, Plunderbund reports on Republican candidate Eric Spicer who is running for the Ohio House's 73rd District against State Rep. Jerrod Martin.

Spicer was an early voice against SB 5. “We tried to shove through bad legislation,” Spicer said, “that was a fiasco.” Spicer argued, “Ronald Reagan believed the Republican Party was a big tent party,” so Spicer wants the district represented by someone who can work with all parties and help build consensus.
[...]
But equally upsetting to Spicer is votes Martin did vote with his party, such as with SB 5 (which was repealed when Issue 2 failed) and the state budget.

In talking about his opposition to SB 5, he added, “and 60% of the voters agree with me.” What particularly bothered Spicer about SB 5 was he believes it “had unintended consequences that would have created a windfall for trial lawyers by getting rid of binding arbitration.”

Spicer is not the only Republican challenging an incumbent, primarily over SB5. Craig Schweitzer a very conservative Republican running for the 67th District, had this to say in an email obtained by Join the Future

The Ohio legislature with our current State Representative chose to embark on a path that used professional educators, as well as other members of the public sector workforce and their collective bargaining units as a scapegoat for Ohio’s financial difficulties. It was a bad choice and in my view a disingenuous tactic that ultimately failed. No single group of, teachers, law enforcement officers, or firefighters is responsible for Ohio’s state budget shortfalls.

Democrat Frank Jackson, urging Republicans to re-legislate SB5 lite in an election year may be the boldest part of his plan.

The #1 Education Story of the Year

Having already published our two through five biggest education stories of the year, here is our considered number one.

1. The Education Busting Budget (HB153)

HB153 is perhaps the single most anti public education piece of legislation ever passed by Ohio's General Assembly, it passed on a party line vote with Republicans in the house and Senate voting for it. It was quickly ushered through while the contentious fight over SB5 was at full boil.

“One really good thing that I will tell you is that as a result of a lot of the hubbub around this issue, we were able to pass our budget with a minimal amount of problems, which is fantastic because it is that budget that has set the framework for the state of Ohio to rebuild,” Kasich told reporters following a speech at a Zanesville restaurant.

The bill sought to attack public education in three main ways

SB5 in the Budget

Much of the education provisions in SB5 were cloned into the budget. The budget contained some almost identical policies as SB5, from teacher pay to evaluations, seniority and continuing contracts. These policy riders were all snook into the budget for fear they would be eliminated if SB5 were repealed. By the time the bill had passed, some of these provisions had been changed, but school districts and the department of education would be left scrambling to both understand the meaning of many of the provisions, and figure out just how to implement them in the short timeframe set by law.

None of the provisions were developed with any collaboration or deliberation, instead they were worked out in a smoke filled conference committee room between just a handful of lawmakers, none of whom have any education policy experience or background.

Much of 2012 will be the story of how these provisions in the budget will be implemented. Thankfully with the repeal of SB5, educators will have a much larger say in that development and adoption than they otherwise would have.

Privatization

The budget also contained a host of provisions designed to shift public education dollars into private hands. The first means was to increase the availability of vouchers, reduce charter school accountability, and all but eliminate the cap on charter schools. So egregious was this plan, that it became the largest point of contention of the entire bill. Much like the fight over HB136, people from all sides of the education spectrum lined up to oppose these half-baked measures.

While the new state budget slashed education spending, it also expanded charters and vouchers in Ohio and modified charter accountability measures. Unfortunately, these changes do little to strengthen the quality of publicly funded, privately operated schools in Ohio, according to this August 2011 policy brief.

The budget also raised from the dead a previous policy that was so disastrous it was repealed - allowing ODE to sponsor charter schools, in the same budget bill that was slashing ODE's budget by $6.3 million.

As a consequence of this budget many students are going to be receiving a lower quality education in a system with less checks and balances, while simultaneously taking much needed monies away from school districts struggling to deliver quality to the other 95% of Ohio's students who attend traditional public schools. If people thought Ohio's charter experiment was bad before, it's about to get an awful lot worse.

That Giant Sucking Sound

None of the things mentioned so far had any reason to be included in a budget bill, other than political expediency, but legislators left the worst for last. While Republicans tried to portray the budget as a "Jobs Budget", in fact it is proving to be an opportunity and job killing budget. By shifting money away from schools to balance the state budget, Statehouse Republicans and the governor slashed over $2 billion from public education, despite vocal calls to stop the drastic cuts to services, especially our schools, that would threaten economic recovery and our children's success, and all this on top of transferring millions via vouchers and charter expansion.

We are now seeing the impacts of these cuts in educator job loss announcements such as this one. Voters are bound to see class sizes increase, opportunities for students will decrease and no doubt more levies will be appearing on the ballot to make up for the devastating cuts made by the state.

In order to deliver these cuts and excursive some political muscle the governor also abolished the evidence based funding formula developed by his predecessor, after months and months of wide collaboration. In its place was put a make it up as you go along "bridging formula" that appears to have no rhyme nor reason and leaves districts in a state of not knowing what their funding stream is going to look like in the near future. We're going to be headed well into 2012 with this uncertainty as the governor just announced that a new formula is going to be delayed. The complexity of funding Ohio's education system is perhaps something that ought to have been considered before scrapping a system that had taken thousands of collaborative hours to develop and deploy.

Over all then, the budget is going to have a lasting negative impact on Ohioans and their education system. It introduced ill conceived education policies, expanding the failed charter experiment, but most of all, slashed funding to below dangerous levels. This is why the budget is our #1 story of 2011.

What teachers are telling the Governor: Day 2

Day 2 of our odyssey into comments provided to the Governor by educators and other random internet commentors. Day 1 can be found here.

People asking to be on a committee or board to develop an evaluation and merit pay system are by far the most common submissions.

Subject: merit pay
Governor Kasich,
I am a Nationally Board Certified teacher with nearly 20 years of experience. I have a Lead Professional Educator license in Ohio. I have a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology. I score the SAT essays for CollegeBoard, the AP English tests for CollegeBoard, and I write content for the ACT English test. I currently work in a high achieving district, but I have also worked in a very challenging school district. I am currently also working for ETS in the MET scoring pilot, which is a Bill and Melinda Gates foundation project for teacher evaluation. My wife is an elementary music teacher, so I also understand the perspective of that age level as well as how those teachers fit into merit pay. I would be happy to discuss my ideas with you; as you can see, I have multiple levels of experience that all will need to factor in to the merit pay issue.

Please contact me if you would like to discuss my ideas on education and merit pay.

Sincererly,

--------------

I have not been contacted by anyone from the Governor's office. Please have someone contact me to let me know that he is notinterested in my input, if that is the case. If not, please have someone contact me to let me know the name of the contact person who is heading up this process.
Thank you.

The next email also follows a very common theme expressed by large numbers of educators.

Subject: Guidelines for Merit-Based Pay System
Governor Kasich,
I am a teacher and responding to your invitation to email suggesdted guidelines for a merit-based pay system. I have no suggested guidelines to offer because research has not shown that merit pay in education works towards increasing student achievement. I do request that SB5 provisions be removed from HB153.
Thank you,
Subject: have you read this yet?
The High Cost of Low Teacher Salaries from the NYT:

http://nyti.ms/m55fWj

Subject:HB 153
Dear Governor Kasich,
I am writing to urge you to oppose including provisions that are the same or similar to those in Senate Bill 5 in the budget bill. HB 153 makes sweeping changes to compensation, evaluation and contractual rights of Ohio's teachers. Similar changes were included in SB 5 which, as you know, is being challenged by referendum.

Passage of provisions like this in the budget bill would serve to undercut the rights of voters to decide the fate of SB 5 in the November election. I ask that you respect the voice of voters and not circumvent the "citizens' veto" by including portions of SB 5 in other legislation. Please act to have these provisions removed from HB 153.
Sincerely,

Subject:HB 153
Dear Governor Kasich,
As a parent, community member and educator, I am in total opposition of merit pay for teachers. The current pay structure is objective and gives order to the process of determining salaries for employees. Merit pay, on the other hand, would be a cumbersome and potentially unfair, subjective process. Moreover, merit pay would not ensure that poor teachers would be motivated to improve or find different careers. Your administration has done nothing but hurt education in the state of Ohio through budget cuts and the elimination of collective bargaining. Why not listen to the professionals involved in education to determine what is necessary to support education?
Sincerely,

We hope this wasn't sent while driving! Just Kidding...

Subject: Hey!
I am not a teacher but I really believe teachers r under paid. I just drive a school bus. Seen too much happening in the schools.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

We'll bring you more tomorrow.

Dispense with the Pretense to Listen

Now that the budget bill is about to be signed, we can dispense with the notion that the Governor was serious about soliciting advice from teachers.

"There are teachers in the state who are concerned about the criteria," Kasich said. "I want to make sure that teachers across the state know that if they want to participate in establishing this criteria, we want to invite them to be a part of this process.

"They can contact the governor's office. They can start there, and send an email. ... I look forward to it. And even if there are several hundred that want to participate, we'll sit them down and walk them through this."

That was just a short month ago. None of that input was shared with legislators. The Senate had sensibly removed teacher merit pay and evaluation provisions, but over a single weekend a heandful of legislators met behind closed doors to dream up their own rubric - based on what, no one seems to know or understand.

What they did come up with is byzantine and can be broken into 2 basic pieces.

Merit Pay

Merit pay will replace current salary schedules, but only for those schools that are participating in the Federal Race to the Top (RttT) program. Plunderbund smartly comments

To clarify, only the 479 school/districts that have received money through the federal Race to the Top program will be required to implement a merit pay program. For the other 441 schools/districts, it will remain business as usual.

We have been INUNDATED with information that claims that business as usual is THE problem with our schools and that merit pay is a key to fixing them (research refutes this), but in the final solution the Committee decides to go 50/50?

If merit pay is such an effective method of reform that the legislature included it in Ohio’s budget bill, mandating it for 479 schools/districts (negating any RttT work they have engaged in), then why not mandate it for everyone?

Furthermore, many have commented to us that RttT agreements might be violated by these measures, as RttT was designed to be developed in partnership with, and not forced up, teachers. It should also be noted that the General Assembly did not allocate any money for merit pay - something we observed recently.

Teacher Evaluations

We highlighted the teacher evaluation language in a previous post. Back are the requirements that 50% of evaluations be based upon high stakes testing. For the 70% of teachers where such data is not available, new testing regimes need to be designed, developed and implemented - at huge cost. This all needs to be done by the end of July 2013. The new provisions also call for costly twice a year in-class observations - something we calculated would cost millions of dollars and produce a huge administrative burden.

None of these provisions were needed, and had the Governor done as he said he would, and listened to teachers he would have realized that the Ohio Educator Standards Board (ESB) has developed a research based teacher evaluation model as part of the RttT grant. Districts and teachers have already been collaborating in developing evaluation and compensation system based on this ESB framework.

Now, in a rush to continue the assault on teachers and public education, that work is wasted and replaced with a bifurcated, unfunded mandate that is not based on any valid research.