Report on STRS December Board meeting

From STRS, December 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

December Board News

Callan Associates Presents Preliminary Results of Asset-Liability Study; Retirement Board Requests Actuarial Experience Review
At the December meeting of the State Teachers Retirement Board, the board's investment consultant, Callan Associates, shared its preliminary findings from the asset-liability study that began in August. Asset-liability studies take into account an investor's risk tolerance, investment goals and cash flow needs paired with capital market expectations to determine the optimal portfolio allocation into broad asset classes.
As reported in last month's Board News, Callan concluded that STRS Ohio's current investment policy target would be challenged to achieve an 8% return during the next five to 10 years; however, based on historical data, Callan said STRS Ohio could expect to generate an 8% to 8.5% return over a 30-year horizon. Callan created a liability model for the system and ran simulations of various asset allocation mixes to project expected return rates and how that growth meets the expected growth in the system's liabilities. The preliminary results of the study confirm that without the benefit changes that STRS Ohio is currently seeking through S.B. 3 and H.B. 69, the system will eventually be unable to pay benefits. Unless the proposed plan changes are fully implemented soon, Callan recommends reducing the risk in the investment portfolio to meet liquidity needs to pay benefits.
The asset-liability study and annual actuarial valuation (received last month) are two important tools for the Retirement Board to assess the financial health of the pension fund. During the December meeting, the board voted to request one additional study — an actuarial experience review. This study assesses all of the pension fund's actuarial assumptions to determine if any adjustments are necessary. Data presented by the board's actuarial consultant in November indicated that assumptions used for payroll growth and individual teacher salary growth are higher than what has been experienced during the past several years.
An experience review is typically conducted every five years — STRS Ohio's last review was in fiscal year 2008. Even though it has been only three years, the board voted to carry out a comprehensive experience review in early 2012 so that it could have up-to-date analysis as it continues discussion of STRS Ohio's financial condition. The board plans to resume that dialogue at its January meeting and also during the Board Retreat later that month.
2011 Annual Financial Statement Audit Completed
Clifton Gunderson reported the results of its audit of the STRS Ohio financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, at the December Retirement Board meeting. The report noted that the system's financial statements were fairly stated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; further, no material weaknesses in internal controls or instances of statutory noncompliance were found. As a result, STRS Ohio received a "clean" audit known as an unqualified opinion, which is the highest level of opinion that an organization can receive.
STRS Ohio's financial statements are included in the 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which will be posted on the STRS Ohio website by Dec. 30, 2011. Copies of the report can also be requested by calling STRS Ohio's Member Services Center toll-free at 1-888-227-7877. In addition to the financial statements noted above, the report includes investment, actuarial and statistical information about STRS Ohio.
Board Approves Three Goals for 2012–2025 Health Care Strategic Plan
The Retirement Board continued its deliberation on strategic health care planning and approved three goals to improve the sustainability of STRS Ohio's Health Care Program. The vote followed presentations by the Member Benefits Health Care Department in November and December. Staff recognized that the current health care program is only expected to remain solvent until 2024, and there is little likelihood for additional funding.
The three goals adopted at the December meeting resolve to:
...• Establish Medicare as the health care program's cornerstone
...• Achieve 30 years of solvency by 2016
...• Extend forecasted solvency to 65 or more years by 2025
The board directed staff to begin drafting a strategic plan document and to explore potential actions to achieve the newly adopted goals. While laying the groundwork for the long term, the strategic plan will include specific initiatives for 2012–2015. Some of the ideas discussed are designed to better align the non-Medicare program with the marketplace. These ideas included consolidating the Plus and Basic plans into a single plan and phasing in higher annual deductibles and out-of-pocket limits in order to lower monthly premiums. Plan details will be presented and voted on at future board meetings.
Retirement Board Salutes Retiring ORSC Director
Board chair Jim McGreevy presented Aristotle Hutras with a resolution honoring Hutras' 22 years of service as Ohio Retirement Study Council director. Hutras is retiring at the end of December. The resolution recognized Hutras for providing "guidance, direction and counsel to STRS Ohio in both good and challenging times." Hutras, who noted that he graduated with an education degree "before the Statehouse bug bit me," thanked the board and staff for working closely with him over the past two decades.
Retirements Approved
The Retirement Board approved 100 active members and 64 inactive members for service retirement benefits.
Other STRS Ohio News
STRS Ohio Receives $43 Million from Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP)
On Dec. 8, STRS Ohio received ERRP payments of $20.4 million for calendar year 2010 and $22.6 million for calendar year 2011 requests. In addition, staff received approval on the claim files for the regional fully insured plans — Kaiser, AultCare and Paramount for 2010 and 2011; the amounts are $1.1 million and $1.6 million respectively. Staff expects the regional fully insured requests will be added to the pending list of outstanding reimbursement requests. To date, STRS Ohio has received a total of $72.7 million from the ERRP project and is awaiting payment for an additional $3.3 million for the regional fully insured plans AultCare and Paramount. Last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that, as of Oct. 27, they have paid out $4.1 billion of the total $5 billion available for ERRP payments.
Update on contract negotiations between Express Scripts, Walgreens
Walgreens and Express Scripts have not come to terms to continue Walgreens' participation in Express Scripts' pharmacy network in 2012. Overall, departure from the Express Scripts' network will likely lead to reduced program costs for STRS Ohio and enrollees. On Nov. 22, Express Scripts began mailing letters to Medicare and non-Medicare enrollees who fill prescriptions at Walgreens. The letter provides information regarding local alternative network pharmacies and instructions should enrollees decide to transfer their prescriptions. On average, there are one or more network pharmacies within one-half mile of a Walgreens' pharmacy. Medicare enrollees who do not use Walgreens will receive an informational letter per Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services guidelines. All letters include a reminder that mail service is available for maintenance medications and how to locate in-network retail pharmacies via Express Scripts' toll-free phone number or by visiting Express Scripts' website. Non-Medicare enrollees who do not have active prescriptions at Walgreens will not receive a letter.
Retirement Board Election Process is Under Way
In spring 2012, an election for one contributing member seat on the State Teachers Retirement Board will be held. The election process began this fall, when individuals interested in running for this seat could first request petitions from STRS Ohio. Those eligible for nomination are individuals presently contributing to STRS Ohio or those who have contributions on deposit with STRS Ohio. STRS Ohio retirees who are reemployed in an STRS Ohio-covered position are not eligible for nomination.
Individuals interested in running for this seat can request petitions from STRS Ohio by calling toll-free 1-888-227-7877. The deadline for returning petitions is Feb. 24, 2012. STRS Ohio members will receive their ballots and voting information in April; they will have through May 7, 2012, to cast their vote. The winner of the election will begin his or her four-year term on the board on Sept. 1, 2012.

Dennis Leone: Testimony on Cyberbullying Before Ohio Senate Education Committee December 6, 2011

Hannah News Service Legislative Update, December 6, 2011

BILLS HEARD IN COMMITTEE
SENATE EDUCATION Sen. Lehner: Tue., Dec. 6, 2011

Senate Bill 127 SCHOOL BULLYING POLICIES (SCHIAVONI J) To enact the "Jessica Logan Act" to require that public school bullying policies prohibit bullying by electronic means and address certain acts that occur off school property and to require staff training on the bullying policy.

Carrie Davis, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio, gave testimony as an interested party. She said that "simply requiring schools to have a policy against bullying is not enough." She stated that Ohio's anti-bullying law, codified at Revised Code Secs. 3313.666 and 3313.67, is inadequate and needs to be strengthened. The ACLU of Ohio supports legislative efforts that "enumerate protections, require in-service training for faculty and administrators, require student instruction, and enact enforcement mechanisms that include both state oversight and penalties and provide a private cause of action," she said.

Davis also urged the Legislature to "exercise caution and be mindful of constitutional limits in addressing so called 'cyber-bullying.'" She stated that there are constitutional limitations on discipline for out-of-school speech and that there are alternatives for addressing cyber-bullying within constitutional limits.

Sen. Hite asked how specific instruction should be. Davis said, "We are not the P.C. (Politically Correct) Police. Bullying is a persistent pattern of harassment and intimidation. It cannot simply be an offhand offensive comment." Hite said that he just didn't want to have 600 school districts sued over unclear policies.

Sen. Obhoff asked where the line was drawn for cyber-bullying. Davis said there are "tricky, gray areas that should only be deemed bullying if there is a decided, repeated pattern." Sen. Coley asked if it happens at school, is it "exempt from criminal law?" Davis said, "We are not trying to deputize teachers." Hite asked if there was any protection for the principals. Davis replied that allowing kids to report anonymously would give protection to administrators.

Dennis Leone, former superintendent of the Chillicothe City School District, gave opposition testimony to SB127, saying it "invites litigation." He gave several examples of federal courts across the country who "have not been supportive of school officials who have taken disciplinary action against students for what they do, or say, or write while they are off school property during non-school hours." Sen. Lehner pointed out that the examples Leone gave "don't show a persistent pattern" of bullying. "It's not surprising that the courts overturned these incidents."

- - - - -

Testimony Before the Senate Education Committee
December 6, 2011
Proposed Senate Bill 127

My name is Dennis Leone. While I am currently an educational administration professor at Ashland University, I am speaking today as a former principal and as a former superintendent of schools who suspended and expelled many, many students between 1980 and 2010. In my 30 years of administrative work, I served 23 years in Ohio as a superintendent. My last district was the Chillicothe City School District. I was sued a lot in my career after I disciplined students, which is one reason I am here today. Proposed Senate Bill 127 commands school administrators to take disciplinary action against students if they engage in cyber-bullying off school property during non-school hours, which means to me that it positively invites litigation.

I addressed this committee several months ago. Much has happened since then. Senator Schiavoni held a public hearing in Cleveland about this bill in an attempt to drum up support for it, and a few federal court decisions have been rendered in other states. In the past six months, many states have adopted laws to address cyber-bullying concerns, but most of these laws are much different than proposed Senate Bill 127. Most states have properly determined that cyber-bullying off school property during non-school hours is a criminal issue, and NOT an issue for schools to take action against those who do it.

When I spoke to you last, I also gave you several examples in current Ohio law (like the habitual absence statute) of how the courts, not the schools, hold parents legally and financially responsible for matters involving their children. Cyber-bullying off school property during non-school hours should be no different. It cannot be an enforcement responsibility of school districts.

Federal courts all across the country recently have not been supportive of school officials who have taken disciplinary action against students for what they do, or say, or write while they are off school property during non-school hours. Unless it is a matter of a student threatening to blow up the school or shoot students and staff, school officials have not succeeded in making the argument that student expression off school property during non-school hours is disruptive of school operations (affecting all students). This committee needs to familiarize itself with some of the federal court decisions of the past eight months:

• The 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania, in two separate cases, struck down the suspension of high school students after they posted ugly, offensive, and highly inappropriate comments on their MySpace and Facebook pages. The school districts argued that the postings were both patently false and disruptive of school operations. The court determined that while what the students wrote was indeed false and highly offensive, it occurred off school property during non-school hours - and therefore was protected free speech pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. The students did what they did at their home, or at grandma's house, on a computer. They did not do it at school, at school activities, on a school bus, at a school bus stop, or even walking to school.
• The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Illinois ruled against high school officials in Naperville after they disciplined students for their actions on a day that was designed to show sensitivity for gay and lesbian students and draw critical attention to harassment. When faculty wore a t-shirt that day that said "Be Who You Are," the students who were disciplined wore a t-shirt with the words "Be Happy, Not Gay." The school district argued in court that what the students wore was potentially disruptive. The federal court disagreed, saying: "A school that permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality." The court said that the students were engaged in protected free speech activity pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.

This committee also needs to be reminded of the decision by a federal district court right here in Columbus, Ohio, in 2005. A student in the Northern Local School District was suspended after he refused to remove his t-shirt or wear it inside out. The boy's parents sued. The t-shirt said:

Homosexuality is a Sin
Islam is a Lie
Abortion is Murder

The school district argued in court that the t-shirt was potentially disruptive because the school had gay students, Muslim students, and female students who had experienced abortions. Federal District Court Judge George Smith determined that while the wording on the t-shirt might have been offensive in the eyes of many, it was an exercise of protected free speech pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.

This committee needs to recognize that the Illinois and Ohio court decisions I have referenced occurred ON school property. Can you imagine how the courts would have reacted if the students had been disciplined because they - at the mall on Saturday - said nasty, mean things about other students, or because they wore t-shirts with mean-spirited messages, or because they wore extremely revealing clothing? If anyone here truly believes that federal courts in Ohio will support the suspension of a student who, for example, calls another a "slut" - even multiple times - off school property over the weekend with a home computer at grandma's house, you need to think again. I'd like to ask this committee this question: How is cyber-bullying off school property during non-school hours any different than students verbally "bullying" each other with mean comments at the mall on Saturday? It is not one bit different.

What matters to federal judges is whether the U.S. Constitution has been violated. In fact, I am not sure I understand how members of a state-level Education Committee think that it is their role to adopt any law that pertains to a U.S. Constitutional issue. Is cyber-bullying off school property during non-school hours mean, offensive, and inappropriate? Yes. Is it legally protected by the U.S. Constitution? Yes, unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court determines otherwise. (Note that in Canada, lawmakers are attempting to pressure Facebook into blocking acts of cyber-bullying.)

While proposed Senate Bill 127 is well-intentioned and is designed to empower school officials to discipline students for what they do electronically off school property during non-school hours, it actually will empower parents to sue if they feel their child's education has been disrupted due to cyber-bullying. Further, it also will empower judges to reject the disciplinary decisions, which means that it also will empower lawyers to drain the financial resources of school districts. I join the Cleveland Plain Dealer in concluding that proposed Senate Bill 127 is an "overreach." Thank you for allowing me to share my concerns here today.

Plain Dealer: Cyberbullying bill goes too far

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/09/cyberbullying_bill_goes_too_fa.html

Cyberbullying bill goes too far: editorial
Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 28, 2011
By The Plain Dealer Editorial Board

Click image to enlarge.

State Sen. Joe Schiavoni, a Democrat from the Mahoning Valley, no doubt is motivated by the best of intentions. But he should tread carefully with an anti-cyberbullying proposal that inadvisedly dumps enforcement on schools and may well pose constitutional problems as well.
Senate Bill 127 would prohibit electronic harassment of students via cellphones, computers and other personal devices if it caused "substantial disruption to the educational environment," even if the offense occurred off school property.
The courts have frowned on school attempts to limit students' free speech and have been skeptical about districts that suspend youngsters for off-campus misbehavior, such as creating embarrassing MySpace pages.
School districts can and should help educate students and parents about proper Internet behavior and punish bullying or other misdeeds that occur on school grounds. Parents should handle the rest. No court can stop them.

Plain Dealer: Huffman's bill bad for public schools and Ohio

From John Curry, December 5, 2011

http://mobile.cleveland.com/advcleve/db_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=lRhPNrM0&full=true#display

Ohio voucher school expansion bill is a mistake: editorial
The Plain Dealer Editorial Board
December 5, 2011

Rep. Matt Huffman, a Republican from Lima and school-choice advocate, may not intend to gouge holes in the budgets of public schools that are already on the ropes, but that's exactly what his voucher bill will do if the Ohio General Assembly passes it.

And that's the primary reason why House Bill 136, which has passed out of the House Education Committee, is bad for Ohio's public schools and bad for Ohio.

Maybe Huffman has an inkling of the troubled waters ahead because late last week he said he would "change the bill significantly" because of concerns that it would damage local public schools.

He ought to go further and just shelve it. Currently, vouchers are given primarily to low-income youngsters who would otherwise be locked in the state's worst schools. Liberating such youngsters from that system is critical.

The same can't be said for Huffman's generous voucher system, which would be open to families that earn up to $95,000 a year, even if their youngsters attend highly rated schools.

According to officials from the excellent-rated, property-tax-rich Fairview Park school district in Cuyahoga County, House Bill 136 could snatch as much as $5,700 out their budget for every private-school-bound child -- even though the district receives just $837 in state aid per student. The rest of the district's money comes from pinched taxpayers, who shouldn't be forced to subsidize private schools with their voted public-school tax dollars.

'Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not how to reform school finance in Ohio, nor is it the proper way to help parents struggling to pay for private schooling. They should not be bailed out at the expense of public schools that serve all residents -- or by means of the voted property-tax dollars that were intended solely for those schools.

Accountability is another issue that Huffman takes too lightly. He says he's not worried about unscrupulous private school operators suddenly awash in Ohioans' tax dollars. Everyone would be closely watched, he promises. But that hasn't happened with charter schools, where some operators have racked up millions of dollars in questionable expenses.

Now imagine trying to review the books of religious and independent private schools, which are naturally opaque institutions.

As the independent Center on Education Policy report on vouchers said last July, vouchers are not a "comprehensive solution" to states' educational problems.

Public schools are likely to continue to educate most children, as the CEP report also noted. Huffman and his supporters should not make it harder for successful schools to do the job.

State Board (Ohio Department of Education) minutes...can you believe this?

From John Curry, December 5, 2011

Note from John....the letter below was sent to me by a concerned retired public servant interested in the unfair (Kasich) method of teacher evaluation that does so by student testing. Where were "our" state board representatives when it came time for a vote? The following transcript came from the minutes of a recent [October 2011] Ohio Board of Education meeting.

P.S. See if you can make any sense out of what Sen. Lehner was saying....I couldn't!

John, I was just looking at the State Board of Ed website at past meeting minutes and found these two pages. Looks like a couple members had concerns but a this Sen Lehner gave a line of BS and they all voted "yes"!!! Maybe you already saw this crap but thought I'd sent it on.

- - - - -

11. RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ADOPT THE OHIO TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM (OTES) FRAMEWORK

The Capacity Committee

RECOMMENDS that the State Board of Education ADOPT the following Resolution:
WHEREAS section 3319.61 of the Revised Code requires the Educator Standards Board to develop model teacher evaluation instruments and processes; and

WHEREAS at its April 2011 business meeting the Educator Standards Board passed a resolution to recommend to the State Board of Education the adoption of the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System model that they had developed pursuant to section 3319.61 of the Revised Code; and

WHEREAS House Bill 153 of the 129th General Assembly requires each school district to adopt a standards-based teacher evaluation policy that conforms with the framework for evaluation of teachers developed under section 3319.112 of the Revised Code; and

WHEREAS House Bill 153 of the 129th General Assembly requires the State Board of Education to develop, by December 31, 2011, a standards-based state framework for the evaluation of teachers that is aligned with the standards for teachers adopted under section 3319.61 of the Revised Code, and that provides for multiple evaluation factors, including student academic growth which shall account for fifty percent of each evaluation; and

WHEREAS the Capacity Committee, at its July 2011 meeting, voted to recommend to the full State Board of Education the adoption of a resolution of intent to evaluate the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System model utilizing Education First, the findings of which would be made available in August 2011; and

WHEREAS the Capacity Committee, at its August 2011 meeting, heard the findings and recommendations of Education First regarding the proposed Ohio Teacher Evaluation System, as well as the Ohio Department of Education’s Minutes of the October 2011 Meeting of the State Board of Education of Ohio 14 responses to the findings and recommendations, and the Department’s proposed changes to the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System, and approved of the changes; and

WHEREAS the Capacity Committee requests that school districts currently piloting the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System be periodically invited to provide testimony to the Committee regarding the progress of the pilot program; and

WHEREAS the Capacity Committee asks the Department to evaluate the testimony that is provided in relation to the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System pilot program, and to make recommendations to the Committee regarding changes to the system as it goes forward; and

WHEREAS the Capacity Committee resolves to completely review the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System in the late spring of 2012 in order to determine any changes that need to be made to the system; and

WHEREAS the Capacity Committee will continue to work with the Department to determine the recommended student academic growth measures that will account for fifty percent of each teacher evaluation: Therefore, Be It

RESOLVED, That the State Board of Education hereby declares its intent to adopt the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System Framework in accordance with section 3319.112 of the Revised Code.

It was Moved by Mr. Gunlock that the above recommendation (Item 11) be approved.

Ms. Oakar stated that she had concerns that students and their environment are not considered when evaluating teachers.

Mr. Reardon and Mrs. Cain stated that they supported the concern that Ms. Oakar had raised.

Mr. Mims urged the Board to promote unification around the indicators that improve conditions for student achievement.

Senator Lehner stated that she believed a balance must be found where any type of excuse for failing certain populations is not present at the same time recognizing certain types of populations are more difficult to educate, but the challenge is to fully educate all students.

President Terhar called for a roll call vote.

YES VOTES

Angela Thi Bennett
Deborah Cain
Tess Elshoff
Joe Farmer
Dannie Greene
Thomas Gunlock
Jeffrey Hardin
Robin C. Hovis
C. Todd Jones
Kathleen McGervey
Kristen McKinley
Jeffrey Mims
Mary Rose Oakar
Dennis Reardon
Debe Terhar
Bryan C. Williams

Motion carried.

Note from John....."Mr. Reardon" [Dennis Reardon] was the former (now retired) Executive Director of the Ohio Education Association.....AND HE STILL VOTED "YES" AFTER QUESTIONING THIS (UNFAIR) 50% PROVISION??????????? AND THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE "NO" VOTE? Give me a break!

(Part III) Kasich's unworkable school ranking system........by Columbus City Schools educator Greg Mild

From John Curry, December 4, 2011

This is simply one more half-baked idea hatched up by Kasich and his self-absorbed education adviser, Robert Sommers. Sommers, infamous liar, must have been too busy running for state superintendent and pushing his teacher testing provision to have stopped Kasich from adding this component. As you can see from his resume for State Superintendent from May, Sommers is a former Vocational Education teacher (agriscience certificate now expired), and with his 10 years of experience in leading a career and technical focused district, he absolutely must have known the flaws in attempting to rank these districts and their individual programmatic needs against all of the other Ohio districts and their standardized curricula. Perhaps Sommers doesn’t care about the students and their schools, either.

http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/12/03/kasichs-unworkable-school-ranking-system-part-3/

Kasich's unworkable school ranking system (Part 3)

by Greg On December 3, 2011

This is our third in a series exploring the new school ranking system created by Governor John Kasich and the Republican legislature. In our first post, we explained how Kasich cut funding to the Ohio Department of Education while adding major new requirements to the agency, a decision that undercuts the likelihood of the ranking system ever being implemented. We also detailed the simplistic ignorance in pretending to use the Performance Index Scores in an objective ranking system. Our second post broke down Kasich’s choice to include value-added data, highlighting the inequity across schools and cost-prohibitive nature of the Governor’s decision. We recommend you read those posts before jumping into this one.

In this post we will investigate the erroneous inclusion of item #3 in the list of ranking criteria.

Again, the six criteria that were adopted in the final bill as follows [bold added for emphasis]:

1. Performance index score for each school district, community school, and STEM school and for each separate building of a district, community school, or STEM school. For districts, schools, or buildings to which the performance index score does not apply, the superintendent of public instruction shall develop another measure of student academic performance and use that measure to include those buildings in the ranking so that all districts, schools, and buildings may be reliably compared to each other.
2. Student performance growth from year to year, using the value-added progress dimension, if applicable, and other measures of student performance growth designated by the superintendent of public instruction for subjects and grades not covered by the value-added progress dimension;
3. Performance measures required for career-technical education under 20 U.S.C. 2323, if applicable. If a school district is a “VEPD” or “lead district” as those terms are defined in section 3317.023 of the Revised Code, the district’s ranking shall be based on the performance of career-technical students from that district and all other districts served by that district, and such fact, including the identity of the other districts served by that district, shall be noted on the report required by division (B) of this section.
4. Current operating expenditures per pupil;
5. Of total current operating expenditures, percentage spent for classroom instruction as determined under standards adopted by the state board of education;
6. Performance of, and opportunities provided to, students identified as gifted using value-added progress dimensions, if applicable, and other relevant measures as designated by the superintendent of public instruction.

The department shall rank each district, community school, and STEM school annually in accordance with the system developed under this section.

#3 – Performance measures required for career-technical education. At the core of this criterion’s failing is the fact that Ohio Career-Technical Education (CTE) performance reports are not generated by individual public school districts. Instead, a report exists for each of the state’s 91 Career-Technical Planning Districts (CTPD) that lists its member school districts’ combined performance.

While the ranking system includes a total of 1,002 districts, the state of Ohio only produces 91 reports comprised of CTE data, of which only 25 represent a single school district. In addition, the Ohio Department of Education reports either 48 or 51 community schools (out of over 300 statewide) with CTE program offerings, depending on whether you look at the top or bottom half of their 2010 Fact Sheet. Regardless of which set of numbers is accurate, it is obvious that not all schools or districts have the capacity to implement a CTE program, including many community schools that only offer an education to students in the younger grades. Unless Newt Gingrich gets his way and we enter our elementary children into the workforce early, many schools will never have any data that is remotely equivalent to CTE data.

The criterion references 20 U.S.C. § 2323, a section of U.S. law whose purpose is to establish a state performance accountability system to assess the effectiveness of the state in achieving statewide progress in vocational and technical education in order to optimize the return of investment of federal funds in vocational and technical education activities. This federal law proceeds to detail the state requirements for reporting student achievement, including academic factors.

In Ohio, the indicators can be found in the Secondary Statewide Workforce Development Performance Report, ODE's tool for accountability and continuous improvement.  Among the components of this report are:

• Academic Attainment—Reading/Language Arts (1S1) – Scored at or above the proficient level on the Ohio Graduation Reading Test.
• Academic Attainment—Mathematics (1S2) – Scored at or above the proficient level on the Ohio Graduation Mathematics Test.

With criteria like these included in the CTE reports, schools that do have CTE programs will be double-counted on these student test results. Ohio Graduation Test results have already been counted in the Performance Index Score (#1), so including the results a second time would either unfairly help or hurt the accountable district.

According to ODE, in 2011-2012, there are 97 CTE programs that span 16 career fields, meaning that even within the required ranking and comparison of districts that actually do have reported data, Governor Kasich wants us to believe that our children are replaceable cogs without unique minds talents across career paths as diverse as:

• horticulture,
• performing arts,
• medical management and support,
• carpentry,
• early childhood education,
• financial services.
• dental assistant,
• pharmacy technician,
• culinary and food service operations,
• cosmetology,
• network systems,
• criminal justice,
• welding and cutting,
• auto technology,
• and 83 other unique programs.

Beyond it being unreasonable to attempt to compare the individual successes of these programs, it is simply ignorant to believe that our children should also be required to demonstrate uniform and arbitrary success measures at a time when we are supposedly encouraging them to hone their unique talents in a career path of their own choosing.

Going back to the number of districts involved, if we believe the ODE fact sheet to be relatively accurate, and if ODE is somehow able to separate the data by individual school district, we must then overlook the likely scenario that district programs will not include enough students to provide statistically reliable results. But even if we can get past that flaw too, we still only have results for 562 of the 1,002 districts in the rankings, leaving us with a category that would only include 56% of the state’s districts.

There’s also the problem of the uniqueness of CTE programming, described as:

organized educational activities that include competency-based applied learning that contributes to the academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, technical skills, and occupation-specific skills, and knowledge of all aspects of an industry, including entrepreneurship, of an individual.

In the end, we are again left questioning how, in his infinite wisdom, Governor Kasich expects the Ohio Department of Education to find this item comparable to the other criteria Ohio will use to scrutinize the performance of schools that only serve children in grades K-5.

This is simply one more half-baked idea hatched up by Kasich and his self-absorbed education adviser, Robert Sommers. Sommers, infamous liar, must have been too busy running for state superintendent and pushing his teacher testing provision to have stopped Kasich from adding this component. As you can see from his resume for State Superintendent from May, Sommers is a former Vocational Education teacher (agriscience certificate now expired), and with his 10 years of experience in leading a career and technical focused district, he absolutely must have known the flaws in attempting to rank these districts and their individual programmatic needs against all of the other Ohio districts and their standardized curricula. Perhaps Sommers doesn’t care about the students and their schools, either.

In our next post in this series, we will tackle the two criteria directly related to school finances. We’ll offer you a Kasich promise and try to keep it concise. And by a “Kasich promise” we mean that we’ll actually do whatever the hell we want.

(Part IV) Kasich's school rankings exeplify ignorance about K-12 education....

From John Curry, December 4, 2011

http://www.plunderbund.com/

Kasich's school rankings exemplify ignorance about K-12 education

By Greg On November 26, 2011

Back in April, when Kasich’s budget was still being analyzed, we posted about the Governor’s proposed criteria for ranking Ohio’s public school districts and how that ranking connected to his proposed school funding numbers. Our analysis was based on the budget bill (HB153) as it existed at that current time, a listing of five criteria applied to public school districts. The budget was modified between that time and its final passage, adding a sixth criteria and definitively including all community schools within the final ranking.

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) recently released a “preview” of these rankings for schools and districts, a simplistic ranking based solely on Ohio’s standardized test results as reported in Performance Index Scores. This release was so underwhelming that even The Columbus Dispatch broke out the sarcasm when covering ODE’s announcement:

The Ohio Department of Education has issued an official ranking of schools and districts by test-score performance. Never mind that this information already was available and easily sortable, if you wanted to rank them on your own.

(Columbus Dispatch, 11/10/2011)

We aren’t satisfied either, so we’ve been working on trying to assemble the rankings as described in the budget bill (and listed below). It hasn’t been easy, and we have learned more through the process of assembling the data than we did by actually constructing the final list.

This is the first of a series of posts in which we will dissect the Governor’s ranking system, explain why it is flawed in ways that can best be described as naive, at best, or at worst, vengeful. Finally, in the end, we will publish our comprehensive list of school districts, a list full of defects and exceptions due to the uninformed and unrealistic expectations laid upon ODE by Governor Kasich and his devotees.

The six criteria were adopted in the final bill as follows [bold added for emphasis]:

1. Performance index score for each school district, community school, and STEM school and for each separate building of a district, community school, or STEM school. For districts, schools, or buildings to which the performance index score does not apply, the superintendent of public instruction shall develop another measure of student academic performance and use that measure to include those buildings in the ranking so that all districts, schools, and buildings may be reliably compared to each other.
2. Student performance growth from year to year, using the value-added progress dimension, if applicable, and other measures of student performance growth designated by the superintendent of public instruction for subjects and grades not covered by the value-added progress dimension;
3. Performance measures required for career-technical education under 20 U.S.C. 2323, if applicable. If a school district is a “VEPD” or “lead district” as those terms are defined in section 3317.023 of the Revised Code, the district’s ranking shall be based on the performance of career-technical students from that district and all other districts served by that district, and such fact, including the identity of the other districts served by that district, shall be noted on the report required by division (B) of this section.
4. Current operating expenditures per pupil;
5. Of total current operating expenditures, percentage spent for classroom instruction as determined under standards adopted by the state board of education;
6. Performance of, and opportunities provided to, students identified as gifted using value-added progress dimensions, if applicable, and other relevant measures as designated by the superintendent of public instruction.

The department shall rank each district, community school, and STEM school annually in accordance with the system developed under this section.

One of the most important things to highlight before going any further is the amount of additional work that is placed on the Ohio Department of Education in this tiny section of HB153. Numbers 1, 2, and 6 all require the department to develop (technically says designate, but items don’t exist at this time) measures to cover gaps in this legislation. That means that half of the requirements are incomplete. Of greater significance is the fact that the Ohio Department of Education has also been tasked with creating other new processes out of thin air, most significantly a performance-based pay system and a new evaluation process for teachers and principals (neither of which have any real-world examples to pull from). But wait, there’s more! Earlier in November it was announced that the state is taking over sponsorship of eight charter schools whose sponsor was revoked because of changes elsewhere in Kasich’s budget (ODE is permitted to manage up to 20).

But if you remember nothing else about this explanation of ODE’s additional workload, know this: Just two days after he was hired, State Superintendent Stan Heffner was forced to layoff 26 employees (with more pending) because the same budget that assigned them additional work also cut operating funding for the ODE by $6.3 million, or 12.6 percent, over the next two years. Again, we’re not in the Stan Heffner Fan Club, but he explicitly advocated against these cuts in his Senate Finance Committee testimony:

However, we have some concern about ODE’s ability to assume all of the new responsibilities included in the budget bill, many of which I have already described, in addition to maintaining our ongoing regulatory and administrative responsibilities, given the cuts to our operations included in the House version of the bill. We understand that every agency must take its fair share of reductions to address the budget shortfall, but respectfully ask that administrative funding be restored to the levels proposed by the Executive version of the budget.

The combination of those details positively informs us that the Governor’s supposed implementation of high-quality education reforms is no more than lip-service (and ignorance). How can we expect high-quality reforms from an agency that is forced to cut staffing while also being tasked with crafting innovative new systems? We can’t, plain and simple.

If you aren’t pessimistic about the viability of the rankings yet, we’ve got more.

Let’s tackle these six criteria first.

#1 – Performance Index Scores. This is the easiest to obtain and provided the basis for the ODE-released scores. We said easy, not accurate or fair. Since these scores are based on standardized test results, only school districts with tested students with have a score (grades 3-8, 10). ODE’s simply opted to solve this issue by exempting the 65 school districts with a PI score from the released rankings. The legislature’s solution to this gap in data was to direct the Ohio Department of Education to create a comparable measure (within the next year). John Kasich somehow believes that ODE can whip up a measure of student evaluation that is of equal validity to the Ohio testing system that has been in use for 20 years. Does Kasich have the first clue about student evaluation or testing? Validity? Reliability? Drawing their naiveté out even further, we can point out that entire research papers have been devoted to the notion that standardized testing has many biases, with poverty being significant. We won’t dwell on this topic much in this post, but the chart below compares school districts’ PI scores with the percentage of economically disadvantaged students (often described as poverty level). Using the trend-line as a guide, it’s easy to see that in Ohio as poverty increases, the test results and connected PI scores decrease measurably. [Click image to enlarge.]

We could post graph after graph displaying this connection, but again, entire papers have been dedicated to proving this negative relationship between test scores and poverty. We point it out because it also demonstrates a bias with this first measurement against districts serving low-income students. Most significantly in Ohio, this negatively impacts the large urban school districts and, since they exist predominantly in low-income districts, Ohio’s charter schools. While we are certainly on record as being opposed to the charter school movement in Ohio, the effect of this criterion on charters supports the notion of Kasich’s ignorance surrounding these rankings. Kasich and his loyal followers (and his financial backers) are huge charter school advocates and have pushed for the expansion of charter schools across the state. At the same time, the inclusion of PI scores as a key statistic in ranking his friends’ schools puts a roadblock in their path to success.

This one single measure required in the rankings illuminates the incompetence of Kasich et al on many different levels.

That leaves only five more criteria that they’ve screwed up…..

We’ll expose the failures of more of the school ranking criteria in the next post in this series. If you have questions, please use the comments section below and we’ll try to address them throughout the posts.