Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > March > 14 > Entry
Strickland goes after school choice
(Gov. Ted Strickland speaks to reporters earlier this week.)
You can tell things have changed at the governor’s mansion.
After eight friendly years of state leadership that supported and nurtured school charter schools and vouchers in Ohio, the new Democratic governor went on the offensive against these public school choice programs in his state of the state address today. (You can download and read the speech here.)
Gov. Ted Strickland wants a moritorium on new charter schools, he wants to end the statewide voucher program and he wants to ban for-profit companies from operating schools in Ohio.
Wow.
Here’s what Strickland said:
“I believe the standards gap between our traditional public schools and other schools receiving public money is so glaring that we must act immediately. My budget imposes a moratorium on new charter schools and prohibits for-profit management companies from running charter schools. My budget eliminates the voucher program except for the means-tested voucher initiative in Cleveland. I am also requiring that we closely monitor all charter schools to determine if they meet educational and fiscal standards of accountability. “
To justify several of his proposed education changes, Strickland cited a recent report on Ohio by the education research corporation Achieve, Inc. I’m sure it won’t suprise you to learn that Checker Finn of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation disagreed with Strickland’s take.
In his reply, Finn says Strickland “so grossly misreads the section on school choice that if this were the Ohio graduation test he would flunk ‘reading with understanding.’”
More from Finn’s response:
“Presumably he’d rather pander to his pals in the teacher unions than honor Achieve’s recommendation that every Ohio child should be given bona fide choices among quality schools. His approach to the state’s fledgling voucher initiative and its uneven charter school program might best be termed “slash and burn.” Freezing, capping and eliminating things doesn’t make them better. It just makes it harder for needy Ohio children to find decent alternatives to the woeful public-school systems in which too many of them are trapped today. Those kids and their families need more good choices, not fewer. The governor’s package will worsen their lot, not improve it.”
What do you think of Strickland’s school choice proposals?
(Image credit: AP)
Permalink | Comments (13) | Categories: Charter Schools and School Choice
Comments
By Paul A. Miller
March 21, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this
Ohio’s charter schools hardly have a leg to stand on. They have been an abject failure, not providing anything close to a “quality” alternative to public schools. A question for proponents: If your argument is that charter schools simply need more time and more money, how exactly is your “solution” any different than that of the bureaucratic, failing public schools? A better model for reform would make open enrollment a requirement for all public schools, allowing students to exit failing facilities which would either improve or close - with the resulting loss of jobs for ineffective administrators and teachers. Administrators and the teachers’ union, of course, are against this form of choice as well. Strickland’s political affiliation gives him the unique credentials needed to push through a real reform of Ohio’s public schools. The only question is, does he have the guts to do it?By newprof
March 16, 2007 7:39 PM | Link to this
Gosh, oldprof, sorry that I seemed to offend you with my vagueness. Of the top five elementary public schools in the city of Dayton, three are charter and two are DPS. Of those three charter school, none of them border suburbs that help them to pull in “ringer” students. I just didn’t want to be too wordy since I had been rather wordy on the blog two days prior. I figured, you’d take a look and give an opinion. As far as the post-modern digital millenium stuff, I was just being a little lazy after working 15 hours at my school and was interested in your opinion. Now…not so much. But I guess I’m Rick now…cool.By Rick
March 16, 2007 5:07 PM | Link to this
Oldprof, yes, that is the study I was referring to. You state: “First, OAT scores are not reliable; that�s why many schools have paid for additional testing, so that they can have a reliable way of tracking yearly progress (Dayton uses Terra Nova, for example).” However, the Buckeye Institute used the Ohio Profiency Test in its analysis. Wasn’t that test the basis for some claiming that charter schools were not doing better than public schools? If the test is good enough to be used one ways, then it is good enough to be used the other. If it not good enough to be used to demonstrate that charters are not doing well?By heather
March 16, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
I think it is a bunch of crap. My child couldn’t get the christian education that he is getting right now if it wasnt for the edchoice. Why should my child suffer if the district we are living in is failing in the public school system?By mike
March 16, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this
“Those who want to say �public schools will always perform badly unless there�s competition� first had better explain why, 1930-1960, our public schools had no competition (except a few academies and parochials) and were outstanding. Could the reason be decades of underfunding, over-mandating, and general politicization by our elected officials???” Or, could the reason be the massive increase in diversity i.e. ELL populations. The U.S has moved toward an equity-concerned public education system… back in the 1930s to 1960s, we had this little thing called segregation where I can guarantee you there were no white politicians railing about an achievement gap…By Oldprof
March 16, 2007 7:43 AM | Link to this
Newprof—you’re Rick, since you say “I was referring”? Once again, I have no idea to what you were referring because you’re not giving us precise titles for reports, like I did. The report I checked was flawed by its own criteria, and the Buckeye Institute, despite protestations, is biased. I know you postmodernist digital-millenium young profs are hasty, but if I’m in the wrong article, don’t just repeat your assertion—please provide title or link for the correct one.By newprof
March 15, 2007 11:04 PM | Link to this
A couple of days ago, I commented on whether charter schools were worth the money. I could use those same comments here to a degree. OLDPROF, the schools I was referring to in that commentary are urban schools not borderlining schools. And DAVID, I am curious to understand your criteria for defining a successful school.By Oldprof
March 15, 2007 8:53 PM | Link to this
Rick, you keep citing the Buckeye Institute but not specifically enough for us to check the research. BI claims to be nonpolitical and nonpartisan, but then they publish research by Greg Forster of the Friedman Foundation which the publication admits is “dubbed ‘the nation’s leading voucher advocates’ by the Wall Street Journal.” They can claim they are impartial and committed to quality research all they want, but it doesn’t hide their hideous levels of bias. If the study you’re referring to was “Using the Ohio Proficiency Test to Analyze the Academic Achievement of Charter School Students: 2002-2004”, you need to take a deep breath. First, OAT scores are not reliable; that’s why many schools have paid for additional testing, so that they can have a reliable way of tracking yearly progress (Dayton uses Terra Nova, for example). Secondly, the report complains about lumping all publics against all charters, but then lumps all charters in a district against all schools in that district. More nuanced reports have shown that the higher-performing charters are either (1) on the border of the district and are pulling students primarily from other higher-performing districts (locally, Huber Heights) (2) blessed with higher than normal levels of funding, either by state error (WEB Dubois) or through donations (ISUS). Big picture: Buckeye Institute is neither impartial nor reliable. Sorry to burst your bubble.By Rick
March 15, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this
Actually Ohio charter schools are holding their own. A study by the Buckeye Institute, which compared charter and public schools with similar demographics, the charter school were equal to or better than public schools. Not as much better than anybody would want. In Georgia the charter schools are doing better than public schools. Governor Strickland and achieve are following the old Democrat playbook, punish gifted students (or the rich) and central control, with no worry about quality.By Oldprof
March 15, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Checker Finn must have the same standards for reading and math—he wants Strickland to find things in a report that’s not there, just as his employee Terry Ryan has misread statistics to claim that charter schools are doing OK. Those who want to say “public schools will always perform badly unless there’s competition” first had better explain why, 1930-1960, our public schools had no competition (except a few academies and parochials) and were outstanding. Could the reason be decades of underfunding, over-mandating, and general politicization by our elected officials???By Bob Borgerding
March 15, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this
It seems to me Gov. Strickland wants to doom students to under performing schools. The only pressure on those school districts that are not meeting standards is Charter Schools and Vouchers. Without these alternatives, there is no reason for those public schools which are doing poorly to make a conscientious effort to improve. I feel the Govenor is trying to go back to an old playbook that no longer works, instead of being truly inovative and progressive about how to give ALL students in the State of Ohio the best education possible, he wants to go back to some bad-old-days where special interests have a hold on the education a child can get in Ohio.By David
March 15, 2007 8:29 AM | Link to this
Strickland got it right. First the Faith-Based fiasco gets the sheets pulled off of the money game for friends of Republicans. Now the antischool legislation that breezed through Ohio gets to see light-of-day. It doesn’t close current under-achieving for profit charters. This is certainly a money saver to avoid more going down the drain for buddies like the Faith-Based office scandle has done. We will hear all the code words about how this is an opportunity missed “for the Children.” Didn’t the Clintons always run that flag up their pole that it’s for the children? The charters have had years now to show their economy and performance; neither has happened. Given their pick of students they still don’t perform better than even the urban schools, let alone perform better than average schools in Ohio. Because DDN was so instrumental in the past in pushing getting these charter schools, I’m surprised it wasn’t the topic of the front page. Instead it was inside several pages. After all the scandals at charters within the last few years which are tip of the iceberg, they can’t really be supported other than by zealots who want to destroy the public schools and destroy teacher associations as a purpose of their beliefs. Let’s have a study by Scott of how many certified teachers are in the charter schools and noncertified teachers; how many are teaching out of their area of license; how many had “problems” when they were in public schools and ended up in charters?By Mary
March 14, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this
Actually, as far as some of the issues I have dealt with as a parent, I think both Strickland and the Achieve report miss the boat - Strickland on choice and Achieve on underachieving high ability students. As I recall, the Achieve report seemed to oversimplify students struggling academically. With one exception they failed to acknowledge gifted students exist and that was a slam - they wanted to quit giving more reliable nationally normed tests to identify them. Many high school dropouts and underachievers are actually academically gifted.