A Democratic Crisis in Cleveland

Is there a democratic crisis in Cleveland? Three issues suggest there might be.

Issue 1

Just over 4 months ago, 2,202,404 voters in Ohio voted to repeal Senate Bill 5 (SB5). SB5 being the draconian assault on working people and their ability to collectively bargain for fair and safe working conditions and pay. In Cuyahoga county the repeal vote was even more overwhelming - 69.2%. Yet the Mayor of Cleveland continued to introduce a plan that has widely been criticized for containing significant provisions of SB5

Introducing a plan that contains provisions that voters have overwhelmingly rejected is an incredibly undemocratic move. No matter how strongly one might believe that certain policy goals are needed, in a functioning democracy the will of the voters should be seen as sacrosanct, not something that can be conveniently ignored, as appears to be the case with Mayor Frank Jackson and his "Cleveland plan".

Issue 2

The "Cleveland Plan" seeks to undermine democratically elected school boards by creating a Cleveland Transformation Alliance, that

will be a public‐private partnership charged with ensuring accountability for district and charter schools in the city, communicating with parents about quality school choices, and serving as a watchdog for charter sector growth.

Why is such an entity required? The vast majority of Ohio's school districts are highly rated while being governed by elected school boards. It's a model that works. Why does Cleveland need to create an unelected non-profit body that would lack the same level of accountability voters demand, while simultaneously adding another expensive layer of bureaucracy? Education leadership and decision making is already byzantine in Cleveland, being the only school district in Ohio that is controlled by a Mayor. Observers might ask why it was ever a good idea to place Mayors, who typically have no educational expertise, in charge of education to begin with.

Issue 3

Creating an unelected body to manage the "Cleveland Plan" is bad enough, but the plan also seeks to make that body secretive and have its deliberations not be subject to public records.

The package of new legislation Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson says will once again “transform” Cleveland’s schools would create a new nonprofit group to make significant changes to the school district, including drawing together both traditional public schools and charter schools.

But unlike school boards for both traditional public and charter schools, that new group would not be subject to state public records and open meetings laws. That means that residents would not have the right to attend the new group’s board meetings, for example, or to see records about the new group’s financial operations or decision-making process.

It appears that the whole purpose of this proposed entity is so that it can be obscured from public view, unaccountable to tax payers and voters alike.

Reading many of the central aspects to this "Cleveland Plan", one gets the impression that its architects believe one of the major problems with Cleveland schools is too much democracy, when the opposite is clearly true.

Analysis shows charters underperform in Ohio's big 8

Every year, the state of Ohio releases an enormous amount of district- and school-level performance data. Since Ohio has among the largest charter school populations in the nation, the data provide an opportunity to examine performance differences between charters and regular public schools in the state.

Ohio’s charters are concentrated largely in the urban “Ohio 8” districts (sometimes called the “Big 8”): Akron; Canton; Cincinnati; Cleveland; Columbus; Dayton; Toledo; and Youngstown. Charter coverage varies considerably between the “Ohio 8” districts, but it is, on average, about 20 percent, compared with roughly five percent across the whole state. I will therefore limit my quick analysis to these districts.
[...]
In short, there are significant differences between charters and regular public schools in the likelihood that they receive different ratings, even controlling for the student characteristics mentioned above. To make things simpler, let’s take a look at how “being a charter school” affects the predicted probability of receiving ratings using three different “cutoff” points: The odds of schools receiving the rating of “continuous improvement” or better; “effective” or better; and “excellent” or better. The graph below represents the change in probability for charter schools.

The difference between the two types of schools in the probability of receiving “excellent” or better (-0.02, or two percent) is small and not statistically significant. The other two differences, on the other hand, are both large and significant. Charter schools are 13 percent less likely to receive a rating of “effective” or better, and they are 22 percent less likely to receive “continuous improvement” or better.

[readon2 url="http://shankerblog.org/?p=3554"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

Common Core Cooperation?

Terry Ryan of the Fordham Institute had a sit down with the new Ohio Superintendent Stan Heffner and discussed the development of Ohio's common core academic standards. Heffner revealed to Ryan that he believed teachers input would be crucial to success

Heffner argued to me (and previously had written in a February 2011 paper for the Council of Chief State Schools Officers) that the successful implementation of the Common Core, in any state, will come down to teacher involvement and ultimate buy-in. He believes that teachers should be involved in the implementation process in five significant ways:

• They must have a significant presence in the development of the new common assessments.
• They will have to change their instructional practices in critical ways if the Common Core is to ultimately lead to higher levels of student achievement.
• They will need model curricula – either generated by states themselves or by SBAC or PARCC in partnership with states – to help them understand and embrace the rigor and expectations of the Common Core standards.
• They must be involved in the development of the model curricula.
• They will need significant amounts of professional development in order to change their established practices and culture in favor of a new design that the Common Core standards and common assessments will demand.

We can only hope that cooperation breaks out, so that Ohio education policy can take a turn for the better.