The Education Gadfly The Ohio
Education
Gadfly
A Bi-weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Volume 5, Number 7. April 13, 2011

In this edition:

Gov. Kasich recently released his education proposals via HB 153, the biennial budget bill for Ohio. Terry testified in the House Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee in support of certain education provisions and shares a recap of it for Gadfly readers. SB 5, Ohio's controversial collective bargaining bill, has some positive provisions but the language around teacher "performance" is still murky - and could ultimately lead to districts falling back into their old habits of rewarding credentials and seniority. Finally, with all of the press around Ohio's plans to restructure low-performing schools - especially via the California-borrowed "parent trigger," - one might think that hundreds of schools would be affected. The actual number is shockingly low.

The Education Gadfly
Read our Flypaper blog Subscribe to the Newsletter Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

Opinion

Kasich's education proposals on the right track, still leave room for improvement

 

Capital Matters

SB 5 could simply mean business as usual for local teacher personnel policies

Impact of school improvement initiatives in HB 153

 

Short Reviews

Creating a Winning Legislative Campaign: The Colorado Story

It's Easier to Pick a Good Teacher than to Train One: Familiar and New Results on the Correlates of Teacher Effectiveness

Charter School Performance in Indiana

District of Columbus Public Schools: Defining Instructional Expectations and Aligning Accountability and Support

Flypaper's Finest

Evaluation of teachers must improve

A more accurate "TFA teachers are like untrained doctors" analogy

Editor's Extras

Dollars and cents: Teacher quality and lifetime earnings

 

Announcement

Event - Are Local School Boards Vital in 21st Century America?

Opinion

Kasich's education proposals on the right track, still leave room for improvement
By Terry Ryan 

Following is an excerpt of public testimony about the education provisions of House Bill 153 that Fordham’s Terry Ryan presented to the House Finance Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee on April 8.  You can read his full testimony here.

Schools and teachers matter greatly, and this is especially true for our neediest and most vulnerable children. Stanford economist Eric Hanushek, who recently testified before a joint meeting of the Ohio House and Senate education committees, reports that “having a quality teacher throughout elementary school can substantially eliminate the disadvantage of low socio-economic background.” The stakes are high and decisions made now will have an impact on our children and their future for years to come.

I support the education reform goals and policies in HB153 because they focus on the dual objective of improving K-12 education in the Buckeye State while helping schools adjust to doing more with less. It is painfully clear that Ohio, like states across the country, has to start figuring out how to live within its means. We cannot make education reform continue to hinge on infusions of more cash – just the opposite. This “new normal”—as Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Bill Gates both term it—has been staring at us for several years now, but we’ve resisted dealing with it because of political timidity and one-time federal stimulus dollars.

In December 2008, I wrote an op-ed for the Cincinnati Enquirer that began:

The dismal economic news for Ohio keeps piling up. State revenues continue to plummet and economic forecasters are predicting a shortfall of more than $7 billion for the next two-year budget. The Buckeye State is going to have to figure out how to do more with less. This is apt to be true for education, where per-pupil cuts of 10 percent or more are realistic. That much out of the statewide education budget amounts to nearly a $1.7 billion reduction for our children.

I added:

Ohio is facing historic economic challenges. Lawmakers should seize the opportunity to not only help the state’s education system make it through the crisis, but make it through in a way that results in a stronger and more effective system. Spending less on doing things as usual is a plan for long-term failure. Now is the time for new thinking and bold action.

I then provided four ideas for trying to take advantage of tough times to strengthen Ohio’s K-12 system while living within our means that included:

·         Fund students, not school districts;

·         Encourage consolidation of services and innovative partnerships in education;

·         Make Ohio a leader in distance learning; and

·         Create a performance-based compensation and sustainable retirement system for

educators.

But the state ignored this advice, and tough decisions that reared their head during the 2009 biennial budget debate were put off two years thanks to $5.5 billion in one-time federal stimulus dollars. Worse, former Governor Strickland’s misleading celebration of a fundamentally-flawed education-funding scheme, which promised billions of non-existent new dollars for schools over the next decade, made people think we would somehow have more money for schools in the future, not less.

 Teachers and others may be forgiven for feeling like all of the change and pain in HB 153 has come out of nowhere because the state political leadership was largely in dential around the looming fiscal crisis before the start of this year.

 
   
 

So, instead of using the now-ending federal aid to help set the conditions for making schools work on leaner rations, the state moved forward for two years with its head in the sand about the impending fiscal cliff we were racing toward. Teachers and others may be forgiven for feeling like all of the change and pain in HB153 has come out of nowhere because the state political leadership was largely in denial around the looming fiscal crisis before the start of this year. At least now state government is dealing with reality, and that reality is undeniably tough. Some recent poll ratings may attest to that fact.

HB153 spreads the unavoidable pain across school districts in a reasonably equitable fashion. It cuts the poorest districts less than the wealthier suburbs, thus trying to protect our neediest children. It cuts public charter school funding by $50 a student but doesn’t eviscerate them, which is fitting considering how egregiously underfunded they already are in comparison with their district peers. Most importantly, the budget pushes reforms that seek to free up school districts to do more with less.

Not everyone regards greater autonomy as a sufficient compensation for less money but, as we learned from a recent Fordham Institute survey of Ohio school superintendents and charter heads, having the flexibility to allocate available resources in the most educational efficacious way would be a huge help to otherwise-strapped districts and charter schools.

Read the full testimony here.

 
- BACK TO TOP -

Capital Matters

SB 5 could simply mean business as usual for local teacher personnel policies
By Jamie Davies O’Leary 

Much ink and energy already has been spilled over Senate Bill 5, legislation that places significant restrictions around collective bargaining for public employees of all stripes – K-12 teachers, police, fire fighters, and state employees. The New York Times labels it “anti-union” and points out that it’s tougher than a similar law in Wisconsin. Opponents of the bill say it represents an assault on Democrats (literally: “GOP trying to annihilate opposition, Dems say”); while supporters argue in compelling fashion that it merely brings into closer alignment what public employee contracts stipulate and what taxpayers can actually afford. Given the campaign to seek its repeal via referendum this fall, Ohioans will be inundated with a lot more coverage of SB 5 in the coming months.    

To be clear, the Fordham Institute does not support all portions of SB 5, but there are provisions in the bill that are critical for  moving K-12 education forward in Ohio, like eliminating automatic salary increases, ending last in, first out layoffs (LIFO), and moving health care and pension negotiations outside of collective bargaining.

Whether SB 5’s reforms are ever fully implemented is uncertain. The referendum may squash the legislation (assuming it’s successfully put on the ballot), but lawmakers – anticipating its repeal - may still borrow language on key teacher personnel provisions and insert it into the governor’s budget bill or other legislative vehicle. In either case, there are a handful of provisions pivotal to ensuring that school districts have a fair and consistent way to determine levels of instructional effectiveness. But even the best teacher personnel reforms in SB 5 need some improvement.

For starters, while replacing the statewide salary schedule with district-determined “salaries based upon performance” is a step in the right direction, SB 5 still preserves pay ranges that are largely correlated with years on the job and masters degrees. In similar fashion, reductions in force (RIFs) will no longer be determined solely based on seniority, but the language that replaces it needs to be stronger. Specifically, SB 5 requires a local school board to consider five factors when determining “performance,” and thus compensation and order of RIFs.  As it is written, all of the following would factor into decisions around teacher pay and layoffs:

1.       The “level of license issued under section 3319.22” – in other words, whether a teacher holds a resident, professional, senior, or lead professional educator license. The problem here is that moving up the licensure ladder requires a minimum number of years in the classroom and attaining a master’s degree. Thus, SB 5 still rewards seniority and credentials (though in a more back-door way) regardless of the fact that research shows both are largely uncorrelated with instructional effectiveness.

2.       Whether the teacher is “highly qualified” – again, this is a proxy for credentials, degrees, and years on the job and says nothing of a teacher’s actual effectiveness.

3.       Value-added measures, where applicable (only reading and math teachers in grades 4-8 would have such data available).

4.       Results from the teacher’s “performance evaluations” which are improved dramatically by this legislation. SB 5 requires that evaluations include “multiple measures of a teacher’s use of knowledge and skills,” include at least two observations that last not less than 30 minutes, occur annually (the formal evaluation, not classroom observations), and incorporate student academic growth (which must make up at least 50 percent of the overall evaluation). Also folded into evaluation requirements (but districts are free to determine the weight of each) are things like “communication and professionalism,” and parent and student satisfaction – which may be determined through surveys or questionnaires.

5.       “Any other criteria established by the board.”

The teacher (and principal) evaluations described in SB 5 are a marked improvement over the hodge-podge of current evaluations across Ohio that tend to rate nearly every teacher as “satisfactory,” but it is unclear how much weight evaluations will actually receive when it comes to important personnel decisions. The existing language is silent as to whether districts are free to determine the weight of each performance variable.

 Whether an overhaul of the state's evaluation system happens via SB 5, the budget bill, or some other piece of legislation matters far less than whether Ohio ensures there is strong, clear language that prevents districts from falling back into their old habits....

 
   
 

For example, what if a district gives evaluations a weight of just 15 percent, and then bases the majority of decisions about pay and layoffs on “level of licensure,” “highly qualified” status, and “other criteria”? That district’s salary structure and layoff decisions would closely resemble the existing system. Further, what happens in instances where each of these “performance” factors may contradict one another? A young teacher without a master’s degree – and therefore on a lower tier of licensure – may be more effective according to his/her evaluation than a “highly qualified” and credentialed peer, but which one would be laid off first or paid more?

In sum, the language around teacher “performance” is still murky and threatens to undermine many of SB 5’s best provisions: ending LIFO, ending automatic pay increases, attempting to install a system of merit, and streamlining the dismissal process for ineffective teachers. Whether an overhaul of the state’s evaluation system happens via SB 5, the budget bill, or some other piece of legislation matters far less than whether Ohio ensures there is strong, clear language that prevents districts from falling back into their old habits of rewarding seniority and credentials above all else.

 
- BACK TO TOP -

Impact of school improvement initiatives in HB 153
By
Emmy L. Partin and Bianca Speranza 

Governor Kasich has put a priority on academic achievement in his inaugural budget proposal with several provisions aimed at improving Ohio’s lowest performing public schools. There has been much media coverage and chatter among observers about the broad concepts of these proposals, but little has been said about the real impact they might have in schools across the state.  Here’s a look at three sets of proposals and who’d be affected.

District schools: Parent trigger & restructuring mandate

Certainly the most talked-about of the governor’s school-improvement proposals is the creation of a “parent trigger” for the state’s worst-performing district schools. The proposal has brought about front-page news stories, strongly worded editorials against the idea, and public testimony in House hearings on the budget dismissing the trigger as another assault on public schools.

The provision would allow parents to petition a school district to force reforms in a school that, for at least three consecutive years, has been ranked in the lowest five percent of all district-operated schools statewide based on its performance index (PI) score (which is a measure of student achievement across all tested grades and subjects). Parents would be allowed to file a petition requesting the district reopen the school as a charter school, replace at least 70 percent of the school’s staff, contract with another school district or entity to operate the school, turn operation of the school over to the state, or make other fundamental reforms to staffing and governance.

This is strong medicine for sure. Similar restructuring has been required for years in failing schools under No Child Left Behind and is taking place in 42 Ohio schools thanks to federal School Improvement Grants.  But the part of the parent-trigger proposal that has been missed by almost everyone is how few schools this law would actually impact.

For example, if the provision took effect immediately and was based on the previous three years of academic data, less than one percent of district schools would make the list (29 out of 3,372 district schools that received academic rating data last year, to be exact).

A similar provision would mandate the restructuring or closure (with similar options as the parent trigger) of district schools that are also in the lowest five percent of all district buildings based on PI score for three years and that are rated Academic Emergency or Academic Watch by the state.  Only 23 schools statewide meet this threshold, based on current data.  Almost half of the schools eligible for the parent trigger or mandatory restructuring are in Cleveland and the others are scattered across the state’s other big and mid-sized urban districts.

 The part of the parent-trigger proposal that has been missed by almost everyone is how few schools this law would actually impact.

 
   
 

Teachers: mandatory content exams in low-performing districts

The governor believes that lack of content knowledge is a major factor when it comes to ineffective teachers (and he’s right to an extent – strong content knowledge is necessary, especially in upper grades and complicated subjects).  The governor has proposed requiring teachers in the lowest performing districts to take content-area exams and allowing districts to use the results of the exams to inform (but not exclusively) personnel decisions about teachers.  Specifically, the proposal would rank all school districts annually by PI score and identify the bottom 10 percent of districts statewide.  Teachers of core subjects (reading, English language arts, math, science, foreign language, government, economics, fine arts, history, and geography) in those districts would be required to retake all of the state’s teacher licensure exams that are required for the grade and subject they teach (Ohio currently uses Praxis exams). 

Of all of the governor’s school improvement provisions, this one has by far the widest impact.  Using the most recent available data, the bottom 10 percent of Ohio districts serve more than 352,000 students and employ nearly 15,500 regular classroom teachers.  Assuming for example’s sake that three-quarters of those teachers teach a core subject more than 11,500 educators would be required to retake at least one exam.  Currently, Praxis charges a $50 registration fee per testing year and $80 for the first test a teacher takes (subsequent tests cost less). It would cost $1.5 million to administer a single exam to all of those teachers.  The actual cost could go much higher, as the provision allows teachers to take the exam up to three times and because the state requires multiple Praxis exams for most licenses. It’s not clear who would cover this cost; the Legislative Service Commission’s analysis assumes teachers will pay out-of-pocket.

A closer look at the districts that fall into the bottom 10 percent shows they aren’t all that bad.  Four of the districts are rated Effective by the state, another 47 are rated Continuous Improvement.  Fully 50 of them have a PI score of 80 or better (which indicates that, on average across all grades and subjects, students in the district are "proficient" on the state's exams). Thirty-eight districts have PI scores of 85 or better, and the highest district PI score in the bunch at 89.8.

Charter schools: Raising the bar to open new schools

The governor wants to improve school quality in the charter sector, too.  While his budget relaxes many of the barriers to opening new charters in the state, it adds a new requirement that prohibits sponsors or operators with any schools rated Academic Emergency or Academic Watch from opening new schools.  Some high-performing operators and school districts would be able to continue opening charter schools under this provision but they’d have a tough time finding an eligible sponsor to authorize them. 

None of the state’s major sponsors (including the Fordham Foundation) would be able to open new schools next year.  A smattering of districts and ESCs would remain eligible, but just a handful of them are serious charter school authorizers.  Most oversee small single-school charter programs within their own districts.  Further, geographical restrictions on where authorizes can sponsor new schools would limit the ability of even these sponsors to bring on new schools.  This proposal, as written, would effectively put a pause on the growth of charters in Ohio, for one year at least.

 
- BACK TO TOP -

Short Reviews

Creating a Winning Legislative Campaign: The Colorado Story
By  Jamie Davies O’Leary

 What better person to write a case study of SB 191 – Colorado’s groundbreaking teacher evaluation legislation – than the legislative director for Mike Johnston, the state senator who shepherded it through to passage? Scott Laband describes the political, policy, and messaging elements that were essential for the legislation’s ultimate success:

  • “Finding strong and credible leadership.” Sen. Johnston, a former Teach for America teacher and principal, had the credentials to lead the charge. Selecting the right co-sponsors with enough expertise to ward off amendments to the bill’s key provisions was also crucial.
  • “Getting the policy right.” SB 191 started by “identifying the flaws of the existing teacher and school leader evaluation system.” It was a pro-teacher piece of legislation that overhauled several things at once rather than in piecemeal fashion (evaluations, tenure, placement, and reductions in force – with the former informing the latter three). Laband also points out the importance of compromises on non-vital amendments, and “rotating political cover” so that no single lawmakers had to go against his/her own caucus too many times.
  • “Building a powerful coalition.” To rally the support necessary to upend a deeply entrenched teacher personnel system, proponents crafted a concept paper early on in the process, identified any and all potential partners (including the civil rights community), and garnered support especially among teachers themselves. The process for creating the coalition sounds arduous, but the brief is compelling in describing its necessity.
  • “Coordinating broad based advocacy.” Chief among advocacy strategies was raising money, maintaining a strong web presence, and implementing a sophisticated lobbying plan.
  • “Controlling the message.” The campaign around SB 191 was unwaveringly pro-teacher, and framed the legislation as helping solve the problem of the achievement gap (rather than portraying ineffective teachers as the main obstruction). Key components of messaging included: polling data, success stories of students and teachers, dispelling “myths,” and “rewarding champions,” (DFER raised $500k alone for Democrats who voted for the bill).

That Democrats led the charge to pass Colorado’s SB 191 certainly “defies conventional political wisdom.” That reality alone holds lessons for the Buckeye State, as lawmakers typically have a hard time breaching the partisan divide – especially when it comes to K-12 education policy. 

 Creating a Winning Legislative Campaign: The Colorado Story
Democrats for Education Reform
Scott Laband

- BACK TO TOP -

It's Easier to Pick ad Good Teacher than to Train One: Familiar and New Results on the Correlates of Teacher Effectiveness
By Nick Joch

How did good teachers become good teachers? Matthew M. Chingos and Paul E. Peterson seek to answer this question in their latest study, wherein they examined several traditional strategies for teachers to increase their effectiveness, such as pursuing advanced degrees, on-the-job training, etc. to determine which methods were successful. To get at this, they investigated student achievement data from all of Florida’s fourth and eighth graders who took state assessments from 2002-2009, to discern which teachers “added value” (i.e. produced gains in student achievement), and what enabled teachers to do so. Interestingly, none of the methods studied significantly improved teacher quality. The most salient findings include:

  • Advanced degrees were not an indicator of teacher effectiveness, and obtaining such degrees did not make a teacher significantly more effective than she was before.
  • No Florida public university offers a teacher preparation program that significantly enhanced the effectiveness of students completing the program.
  • In the first one to five years of teaching, on-the-job training (years served) increased teacher effectiveness, but after five years there was no noticeable increase. In fact, effectiveness may decrease as a teacher’s career progresses.

Considering the sharp debate surrounding seniority-based layoffs, as well as Ohio’s fiscal problems (master’s degree pay raises for teachers cost over $400 million annually), state lawmakers would do well to take note of the results of this study. SB 5 is a step in the right direction on this front as it reduces emphasis on traditional notions of effectiveness such as credentials, years of service, etc. Further, although Chingos and Peterson examined only public university teacher training programs in Florida, a recent Fordham study shows that teacher training programs across the country, including in Ohio, do not adequately equip teachers for their profession. Ohio needs to ensure that teacher training programs at its public universities make a positive difference in the effectiveness of the teachers they graduate.

An article about this study also appeared in Education Next. The full text of the study is available here, and another version of it was published in the Economics of Education Review.

It’s Easier to Pick a Good Teacher than to Train One:
Familiar and New Results on the Correlates of Teacher Effectiveness

Matthew M. Chingos and Paul E. Peterson
Program on Education Policy and Governance (Harvard Kennedy School)
December 2010

- BACK TO TOP -

Charter School Performance in Indiana
By Andrew Proctor

The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford released its latest study of charter school performance, this time focusing on Indiana. The report follows on CREDO’s 2009 national charter school study, which found mixed results for charters nationwide and not-so-stellar results for Ohio charters. Drawing on data from 42 charter schools and 8,959 charter school students in Indiana between 2004 and 2008, researchers developed a comparison methodology that matched students in traditional public schools with students in charter schools, and compared the learning growth of the two groups (determined using results from annual standardized tests). Researchers also measured the impact of attending a charter school based on the length of time a student was enrolled in a school, as well as the age of the school.

Learning gains among students in charters were greater when compared to district peers. The most important finding may be that Black students in charter schools outperformed Black students in traditional public schools, and that in math Black students in charter schools were performing at similar levels to the average white student in traditional public schools.  CREDO’s report on Ohio in 2009 revealed a less positive narrative for charter schools here. In sum, Indiana charter schools have performed better (compared to traditional public schools) than Ohio charter schools have. But while these results are encouraging for the Hoosier State, as their legislature attempts to expand the state’s charter school program, robust standards must exist to prevent the authorization and reauthorization of charters with poor performance. This is an ongoing battle over charter school quality that Ohio knows all too well.


 Charter School Performance in Indiana
Center for Research on Education Outcomes
Stanford University
March 2011

- BACK TO TOP -

District of Columbus Public Schools: Defining Instructional Expectations and Aligning Accountability and Support
By Bianca Speranza

When Michelle Rhee took the helm of DC Public Schools in 2007 the district’s achievement was dismal. NAEP scores for DC’s students were among the lowest in the nation, and achievement gaps between white and black students were among the largest in the country.  Rhee and her team knew that something had to change dramatically. This latest case study by the Aspen Institute describes how Rhee and her team sought instructional excellence in every DC classroom, by first defining the principles of effective teaching and then creating a system of evaluation and pay centered squarely on it.

Aspen breaks down Rhee’s overhaul of teacher personnel policy into three segments: introduction of the Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF) emphasizing planning, teaching, and effectiveness of teachers, the creation of IMPACT, a new accountability system to ensure that the criteria set forth in TLF were carried through, and finally implementation of the evaluation system in the 2010-2011 school year.

Out of this process came five lessons from which schools districts across the country can learn, among them: creating common expectations about what effective teaching consists of, the need to anticipate that the hardest part of creating a teacher performance system is helping teachers improve their skills, and that continued development of organizational capacity is crucial to success. While this story is unique to DC, states around the country should be forewarned about the challenges of overhauling entrenched teacher evaluation systems. As Ohio moves forward it would do well do keep the successes, challenges, and lessons learned from DC in mind.


District of Columbia Public Schools:
Defining Instructional Expectations and Aligning Accountability and Support

The Aspen Institute
Rachel Curtis
March 2011

- BACK TO TOP

Flypaper's Finest
A selection of the finest offerings from Fordham's blog, Flypaper.

Evaluation of teachers must improve
By Terry Ryan

Effective teachers are the most valuable education asset that Ohio (or any state) has. Statistics don’t lie when it comes to their impact on children’s learning. Given how powerfully teachers can alter students’ life trajectories, it is not only prudent but imperative to push reforms that enable education leaders to distinguish effective teachers from ineffective ones.

Read the full post here, which also appeared as an op-ed in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Columbus Dispatch, and Dayton Daily News.

The Education Gadfly
Read the rest on Flypaper.
- BACK TO TOP -

A more accurate "TFA teachers are like untrained doctors" analogy
By Jamie Davies O’Leary

The Columbus Dispatch featured an anti-Teach For America op-ed by an OSU ed professor (Thomas Stephens). He says nothing surprising to any of us who’ve heard ed schools’ views of alternative teacher preparation before. And given that TFA-enabling legislation has already passed, his disparaging of the program is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. But his line of reasoning is one that drives me so far up the wall that I just can’t help myself. Bear with me for a moment, and then I’ll shut up about Teach For America and go back to my work.

Read the full post here. 

The Education Gadfly
Read the rest on Flypaper.
- BACK TO TOP -

Editor's Extras

Dollars and cents: Teacher quality and lifetime earnings
By  Nick Joch and Andrew Proctor

  • How do teachers impact students’ lifetime earnings? Eric Hanushek has quantified the answer to this and other questions related to teacher quality in his recent Education Next article.
  • Is high-stakes testing hurting our kids? Byong Man Ahn, former Minister of Education for exam-intensive South Korea, thinks so, according to this recent Education Week article. Gregory Michie takes a similar tone in his Huffington Post op-ed, as he explores the overuse of the word “innovation” in education. Unfortunately he misses a key point – improving test scores for “impoverished kids” and fostering creativity are not mutually exclusive.
  • Education Week’s Schwartz, Levin, and Gamoran continue their Future of Education Reform series.  Part two (of seven) provides education reform recommendations based on successful policies from countries that are out-performing the United States on international tests.
  • The latest research on school funding inequalities comes courtesy of the Center for American Progress’s Saba Bireda, whose latest report, Funding Education Equitably, addresses problems with the ESEA’s Title I “comparability provision.” Bireda identifies loopholes in this provision that result in the rich getting richer (and vice versa), then proposes some solutions to the inequities she finds.      
  • Tennessee students can fear no more thanks to the “anti-bullying” legislation passed in the House this week.  Teachers may now protect their students from “intellectual bullies” who apparently took over education decades ago by including theories on global warming and evolution in school curriculums.  Andy Sher covers the story in the Chattanooga Times Free Press. 

 

- BACK TO TOP -

Announcements

Event - Are Local School Boards Vital in 21st Century America?

Join Fordham and a crackerjack set of panelists—including Anne Bryant of the National School Boards Association, Christopher Barclay of the Montgomery County Board of Education, Chester E. Finn, Jr. of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, and Gene Maeroff, author of School Boards in America: A Flawed Exercise in Democracy—on April 26 from 4:00-5:30PM for what proves to be a lively debate on the future role of school boards. For more event details and information on how to RSVP, go here.

This event will be webcast live on the Thomas B. Fordham Institute website. No need to sign up to watch it—simply go to our website at 4 PM and click on the link provided. 

 

- BACK TO TOP -

The Ohio Education Gadfly is published bi-weekly (ordinarily on Wednesdays, with occasional breaks, and in special editions) by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Have something to say? Email the editor at ohiogadfly@edexcellence.net. Would you like to be spared from the Gadfly? Email ohiogadfly@edexcellence.net with "unsubscribe gadfly" in the text of your message. You are welcome to forward the Gadfly to others, and from our website you can even email individual articles. If you have been forwarded a copy of Gadfly and would like to subscribe, you may email ohiogadfly@edexcellence.net with "subscribe gadfly" in the text of the message. To read archived issues, go to our website and click on the Ohio Education Gadfly link. Aching for still more education news and analysis? Check out the original Education Gadfly.

Nationally and in Ohio, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, along with its sister organization the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, strives to close America's vexing achievement gaps by raising standards, strengthening accountability, and expanding high-quality education options for parents and families. As a charter-school sponsor in Ohio, the Foundation joins with schools to affirm a relentless commitment to high expectations for all children, accountability for academic results, and transparency and organizational integrity, while freeing the schools to operate with minimal red tape. The Foundation and Institute are neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.


Would you like to be spared from The Ohio Education Gadfly?
 
Click here to update your preferences.

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
37 West Broad Street, Suite 400
Columbus, OH 43215

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
400 East Fifth Street, Suite C
Dayton, OH 45402



Copyright (C) 2011 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute. All rights reserved.

powered by CONVIO
nonprofit software