Could school funding reform increase integration, test scores?

"If you actually want to best serve low-income urban kids," says Matthew Ladner of the Arizona Chamber Foundation, "yes you want to give them access to charter schools, yes you want to give them access to private schools, but you also want to give them access to suburban district schools." 

I'm sure our pallid pals in the suburbs will be all for it, right? Because we know they care about all children.

My assigned district school? Some say no thanks

School choice is further along in some other places than it is in Oklahoma.

For example, the Raleigh News & Observer reports today ("1 in 5 NC students don’t attend traditional public schools, new figures show") that "the percentage of North Carolina’s 1.8 million K-12 students attending traditional public schools dropped to 79.9% this year."

Last week in the Tallahassee Democrat, former OCPA research assistant Patrick Gibbons pointed out that "in the span of a generation, Florida has gone from 10 percent of students attending something other than assigned public schools to 47 percent." Education researcher Matt Ladner has noted that in greater Phoenix "fewer than 50% of students attend their assigned district school."

Oklahoma is not there yet, but we're moving in that direction. One hopes that over time our political leaders will align public policy more and more with their constituents' preferences. 

Trump favors educational choice

61 percent of Oklahoma families have a private school within a five-mile radius of their home

Source: Brookings Institution

School district runs school choice program mostly for district employees

Over at the Education Intelligence Agency, Mike Antonucci is amused that one school district, "which has a residency enforcement investigator, also runs a school choice program that mostly benefits the children of its own employees who live outside of the district’s borders."

Public schools accept everyone?

Some folks in the public education community are fond of asserting that public schools have to take all comers. Writing in the Journal of School Choice ("Homeschooling, Virtual Learning, and the Eroding Public/Private Binary"), Aaron Saiger reminds us that this is not true. Mr. Saiger—formerly a law clerk for Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now a law professor at Fordham University—writes:

In the context of bricks-and-mortar education, districts, especially affluent ones like Fairfax [Virginia], have mightily resisted admitting or registering students from out of district. Options for interdistrict transfers that have been a part of education reform packages have generally withered. Such programs generally provide that receiving, wealthy districts must certify that there is space for additional students; and such districts rarely do so.

This has been the case, for example, in the Cleveland school voucher program. This program permitted parents of Cleveland public school children to receive vouchers for use outside the district. That program, and the Supreme Court case upholding it, was famous because it allowed the vouchers to be used at private religious schools [Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. 536 U.S. 639 (2002).]. But the voucher law also provided that vouchers could be cashed at public schools in neighboring, whiter, wealthier districts. This part of the program was not famous. This is because no vouchers moved across district lines. Receiving districts had to agree to accept the vouchers, and none would.

Similarly, until a legislative reauthorization in late 2015, the federal No Child Left Behind Act provided that children in what the Act called “failing” schools be permitted to transfer to other, more effective school districts. Again, this required that nonfailing districts accept such students. Unsurprisingly, almost none were willing. Most cited space constraints [Aikens, A. (2005). "Being choosy: An analysis of public school choice under No Child Left Behind." West Virginia Law Review, 108, 233.]. It should surprise no one that interdistrict transfer was the least utilized plank of the Act.

Teaching couple moves to Oklahoma

Looking for better teaching opportunities and more competitive pay, an Indiana couple has moved to Oklahoma City to teach in a public charter school.

OCA students, parents satisfied with online school, teachers

"Oklahoma Connections Academy, a tuition-free online public school that serves students statewide in kindergarten through 12th grade, logged on for the first day of school on Aug. 12," the Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise reports.

The new school year kicks off just as the results of Oklahoma Connections Academy’s annual Student Satisfaction Survey reveal that 91 percent of students in grades K-12 are satisfied with the online school program. 

These results come on the heels of Oklahoma Connections Academy’s Parent Satisfaction Survey, which revealed that 95 percent of parents would recommend the online school program to other families.

Pizza in the park

The Oklahoma chapter of PublicSchoolOptions.org is hosting two “schools of choice” picnics next month. Families are invited to come have some pizza and hear about the latest school choice news. There is no cost to attend, but please RSVP here. For more information, contact Colleen Cook (Colleen@PublicSchoolOptions.org).

'Leave our funds alone'

When it comes to parental choice policies, Mr. Tracy Borden of Vici, Oklahoma, is "NOT interested!"

This according to a message he sent to us over at the Choice Remarks Facebook page. "My boys are getting a good education in a school they like," he writes. "I am a school board member, and teach at a Tech Center. Leave our funds alone."

A few thoughts. First, it seems to me that Mr. Borden is a school-choice success story, both as a parent and as a teacher. Remember, many parents have concluded that choosing a public school is the best choice. Indeed, even in states with the most robust school-choice programs, the overwhelming majority of parents still choose a public school for their children. Moreover, Mr. Borden teaches in a school of choice. As Oklahoma's former CareerTech boss Bob Sommers once reminded me, career-tech schools were actually the first charter schools.

Next, I would suggest that, as a school board member, Mr. Borden owes it to his constituents to be open to policies which improve the public schools. (Yes, the empirical evidence shows that school choice improves public schools.) According to the Global Report Card, which compares American school districts to 25 developed countries, Vici students scored at the 44th percentile in math and the 33rd percentile in reading. If, for example, you picked up the Vici school district, airlifted it north and plopped it down in Canada, the average Vici student would be at the 36th percentile in math and the 24th percentile in reading. If Vici were relocated to Finland, the average Vici student would be at the 29th percentile in math and the 20th percentile in reading. So it's conceivable that parents in Vici would like to have more educational options for their children (which, yes, is possible even in rural areas).

Lastly, there's this notion of "our funds." That truly is the mindset of many folks in the monopoly school system: that it's their money. Whereas parental-choice supporters believe policymakers should fund the children, too many of the status-quo folks believe policymakers should fund the system. I commend to your attention a short piece Andrew Spiropoulos and I wrote about this topic here.

Forward-looking superintendent says ‘a one-size-fits-all approach is not effective’

In a recent blog post containing an admirable and honest bit of self-examination (“A Long Gaze in the Mirror”), Sand Springs assistant superintendent Rob Miller made the point that there are many policies and practices in the public school system—“self-inflicted wounds,” some of them—which Mr. Miller believes could be unhealthy. This one caught my eye:

Allowing parents to make choices about placement (gifted/talented pods, magnet schools, selective programs) to keep their child away from “those kids.”

It seems to me there are a few troubling assumptions baked into that statement. First, notice the word “allowing.” School leaders are granting permission to the people who are paying their salaries.

Second, notice that school officials are allowing parents to make choices. It’s well-known that the hireling doesn’t care for the sheep like the shepherd does. And yet the assumption here is that the very people who conceived and bore the children, who love the children more than any government official ever could, shouldn’t be permitted to direct their children’s path.

Third, Mr. Miller appears to assume jurisdiction over some parents’ motives—and to ascribe dishonorable ones. Isn’t it possible that parents could have valid educational reasons—reasons that have nothing to do with “those kids”—for wanting particular educational options for their children? In any case, regardless of the parents' motives, I refer you to the two preceding paragraphs.

Alberto M. Carvalho

In stark contrast, note the actions of another school administrator that very same day. Alberto M. Carvalho, the superintendent of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, unveiled 53 new choice and magnet program offerings for the new school year—bringing the district’s total number of choice programs to more than 500.

“Students and teachers of Miami-Dade County Public Schools are in for another exciting year of innovative programs and initiatives,” he said. “We understand that a one-size-fits-all approach is not effective. That said, we have once again tailored our educational programs to meet the personalized needs of students and provide them with specialized resources to ensure they have every opportunity to excel academically.”

Mr. Carvalho is the same superintendent who last year said, “Rather than complain about the incoming tsunami of choice, we’re going to ride it.”

'It’s ridiculous for schools to expect us all to learn in the same way'

"There is a need for online school," says Emily Mee, a recent graduate of Oklahoma Connections Academy, a government-funded online school. "Some people need more time, some need to be challenged. It's ridiculous for schools to expect us all to learn in the same way."

Superintendents compete for students

June Kronholz reports on districts of choice.

Barresi gives congressional testimony

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF JANET BARRESI, 

OKLAHOMA STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 

TO THE U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

APRIL 7, 2011

Chairman Kline and Honorable Members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am pleased to offer testimony today on education reforms and to address how I believe we can better promote flexibility and innovation.

I took office in January amid a bipartisan groundswell of support in Oklahoma for education reform. Most Oklahomans recognize we’re in crisis in education in our state.

In March, we learned that nearly 43 percent of first-time freshmen who entered Oklahoma’s public colleges in the fall of 2009 were not prepared for college.

In January, results from the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that 72 percent of Oklahoma fourth-graders taking the test and 75 percent of eighth-graders taking the test fell below “proficient” in science.

And research by Stanford economist Eric Hanushek that compared top-performing math students all over the world showed that Oklahoma ranked far down on the list near developing or struggling nations like Bulgaria, Chile and Thailand.

These results are like a dash of cold water. We understand mediocre doesn’t cut it anymore, and we’re taking action.

Just three weeks ago, I launched the 3R Agenda — a commitment to new fundamentals for the 21st century. The new 3Rs for our state’s future are: Rethink, Restructure and Reform.

RETHINK is a complete reassessment of how we’re delivering education to empower parents, children and teachers, and to embrace new tools like digital learning. RESTRUCTURE involves a transformation of Oklahoma’s State Department of Education.

I'll focus more on the third ‘R’ — REFORM — because it is the primary reason I am here today.

We’re now at the halfway point in our State Legislature’s annual legislative session, and significant progress has been made on a number of reform bills.

It appears we will implement a grading system for schools and school districts — an annual A through F report card just like students receive, so that parents can determine how a school is performing without having to interpret obscure or confusing metrics.

We will also likely end social promotion after the third grade — so students aren’t entering their most critical learning years unprepared.

And I am urging passage of legislation enacting tuition tax credits in Oklahoma to offer parents more and better choices. Under the legislation, business and individuals could qualify for tax credits for contributions to eligible scholarship-granting organizations, and those organizations, in turn, would offer scholarships to qualifying families in need.

But just as we embark on legislative implementation of the 3R Agenda, we are mindful of potential obstacles if the federal government is too inflexible. I am also hopeful that, while policymakers debate the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, reformers will follow the lead of states like Oklahoma.

A few examples.

Under the current implementation of No Child Left Behind, the Adequate Yearly Progress yardstick evaluation is rudimentary and does not provide meaningful information to parents. But most importantly, it does not recognize the ultimate goal of college and career ready status for all students facing the 21st century workplace. By contrast, Oklahoma’s new A through F school report card system will offer easy-to-understand results for parents, and it is based on a number of different measurements that incorporate gains and improvement.

Another example: As Oklahoma seeks to end social promotion after the 3rd grade, many districts would like to fund portions of this effort with federal funds. But it appears this would not be possible currently because of federal restrictions on supplementing versus supplanting. This demonstrates the ways in which entrenched federal guidelines present some barriers to innovative state policies.

On the one hand, the U.S. Department of Education has issued guidelines that on the surface seem to offer states more flexibility to meet local needs. But there seems to be a disconnect between good intentions at the top level and what actually occurs in practice.

And let’s consider the simple reform of tuition tax credits. Federal law offers parents in low-performing schools the opportunity to transfer to another public school. This isn’t true choice. Oklahoma’s reforms will offer parents an array of more choices — rather than only the option of transferring from one public school to another. I urge reforms that follow this same pathway by incentivizing states to provide an array of options for students.

As all participating states prepare to transition to Common Core curriculum standards, more flexibility is also needed in the use of federal funds for professional development that would support effective instructional practices. Additionally, broadening the scope of the designation of Title programs to include a wider array of subject matter, such as STEM initiatives, would help enable states to offer a more challenging curriculum.

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee, the bottom line is this: we can turn our crisis in Oklahoma into an opportunity, but only if we are prepared to embrace the kinds of bold reforms that fundamentally transform our education system for the better — and only if the federal government is prepared to work with states like ours to allow the flexibility we need in order to innovate.

Thank you.

Public-school options supporters to meet at Capitol

The Oklahoma chapter of the National Coalition for Public School Options is having its first annual "Day at the Capitol" on Thursday, April 7. Here's the schedule of events:

9:30 AM to 10:00 AM: Check-in (Capitol building -- 1st Floor, Room 104)

10:00 AM to 10:30 AM: Welcome, legislative briefing, and talking to your legislator workshop (Room 104)

10:30 AM to 10:40 AM: Write your legislators (Room 104)

10:40 AM to 11:30 AM: Visit your legislators and sit in House/Senate galleries

11:30 AM to 12:30 PM: Lunch and talks from legislators (1st floor rotunda)

1:00 PM and 2:00 PM: Take Capitol tours or explore capitol on own (official tours at 1 PM and 2 PM at the Visitors Center (1st floor -- adjacent to the southeast entrance)

'Parents with the power to choose'

Nearly one-third of Tulsa Public Schools students are on choice transfers, the Tulsa World reports today.

Tulsa student transfers increase

"With the number of Tulsa Public Schools sites sanctioned to the Oklahoma School Improvement List likely to double, the district is fielding many more school-choice requests from students' parents," the Tulsa World reports.

'Grateful for the choices that already exist'

Good editorial in the state's largest newspaper this morning reminding us that school choice is "alive and well" in Oklahoma.

Public-school choice in Tulsa

"Tulsa Public Schools this week will begin notifying parents of their right to request a student transfer out of 10 of the 11 school sites expected to be named to the Oklahoma School Improvement List later this month," the Tulsa World's Andrea Eger reports.

Public-school choice continues to grow

Michael J. Petrilli highlights some findings from The Condition of Education 2009.