Tag Archives: public schools

Kevin P. Chavous speaks at Rally for School Choice

A few weeks ago, almost 2,000 school choice supporters gathered at the Ohio Statehouse to rally for school choice at the Rally for School Choice. We were so excited to see students, parents, school leaders and supporters from across the entire state join together to show Ohio’s leaders just how important school choice is.

At the rally, we were lucky to hear from some awesome speakers who voiced their support for school choice.  We had the pleasure of hearing from Kevin P. Chavous, a national education reform leader, who told the audience that “the only way you see change is when the power is in the hands of parents!” We couldn’t agree more. Check out a video of Chavous’ speech by clicking on the picture below.

How public is public and how exclusive is private?

Education “cream-skimming” is the fear that certain schools (public or private) take the “best” students, and leave behind the students that can’t make the grade or have less motivated parents. Even though private schools can have selective admission, the dichotomy between private schools being so exclusive and public schools being so inclusive is not so stark as it might seem.

  • Yes, private schools can have selective admission … just like the suburban districts that charge the steep tuition of higher property taxes. Or the public magnet schools, which also have admission tests but with 3 times the money.
  • Speaking of money, private schools don’t have any. Most of them pay their teachers unbelievably low salaries already. So, no, they cannot serve all students who come to them. The large number of private schools that already participate in the Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship in its first year demonstrates that private schools are happy to open their doors as much as they can when they are funded at appropriate levels to meet the needs of the students.
  • Often, the best public school students are doing just fine in their public schools and their parents are satisfied and not looking for a change.
  • Not all private schools have selective admission. Levels of selectivity vary among private schools, just like public magnet schools.

Not that money is all that matters by any means, but the state saves money on every voucher student because the scholarship amounts are 1/3 of public school funding levels. That’s a deal, regardless of the prior achievement level of the student.

On the other hand, states that mandate open enrollment policies for voucher-accepting private schools have seen the mix of voucher-receiving and tuition-paying parents at a school decline, which limits socio-economic integration.

State leaders do need to be careful to design programs so that they promote equity and help families break poverty cycles.

Badly-designed choice programs can exacerbate inequities rather than alleviate them. Take the example of a scholarship program that does not have any income limitations and only provides $1,000 voucher. There is no way that program is going to help many families of modest means because they won’t be able to cover the gap between private school tuition (usually $4,000/year for elementary and middle school) and the $1,000 voucher amount.

But Ohio’s programs are not designed that way. They promote equity by giving low-income families first priority for vouchers and requiring the private schools that enroll them to waive any tuition overages.

Ohio’s low-income students, who have been kept from a quality education because of their inability to control their families’ income, need the same opportunities as their higher income peers to receive an education that they deserve and will help them succeed.

States using new school model

The Columbus Dispatch recently published an article about a new school model, which allows students more freedom and options in their education – the a la carte school. It’s currently being utilized or under consideration in multiple states, including Louisiana, Michigan, Arizona and Utah.

This model would allow students to customize their curriculum based off of their learning needs and desires. Hundreds of classes would be available for students to choose from, some being taught by public institutions and others by private vendors. An a la carte school would allow students to learn in a typical classroom-setting, online or first-hand from a company.

Read the article below to learn more about the a la carte school, and then tell us what you think.

Classes a la carte: States test a new school model

Reuters
Published in The Columbus Dispatch

Louisiana Superintendent of Education John White has a problem with schools.

They’re too confining, he says. They trap kids in chairs, in classrooms, in the narrow bounds of an established curriculum. So White and a handful of fellow revolutionaries have begun pushing a new vision for American public education.

Call it the a la carte school.

The model, now in practice or under consideration in states including Louisiana, Michigan, Arizona and Utah, allows students to build a custom curriculum by selecting from hundreds of classes offered by public institutions and private vendors.

A teenager in Louisiana, for instance, might study algebra online with a private tutor, business in a local entrepreneur’s living room, literature at a community college and test prep with the national firm Princeton Review – with taxpayers picking up the tab for it all.

The concept alarms many traditional educators. They fear public schools will lose funding to private vendors and will end up with such crimped budgets that they won’t be able to provide a full range of academic classes, much less extras like sports, clubs and arts. That, in turn, could accelerate the exodus of students and the cutbacks in funding.

Teachers, superintendents and school board members also warn that an a la carte system could leave behind children from poor or unstable homes who may not have computers to take online classes, transportation to reach far-flung vendors, or adult guidance to help them sort through a dizzying menu of options. The system also has the potential to leave students unsupervised for large chunks of the day, which could raise safety and discipline concerns.

“We’re really concerned about equity,” said Don Wotruba, deputy director of the Michigan Association of School Boards. “There will be haves and have-nots.”

Backers of the concept acknowledge there will be challenges but say the one-size-fits-all “factory model” of public school is woefully outdated.

Students in many states have a vast array of school choices, including charter and online options, but once they pick a school, they’re typically limited to classes offered within its walls (or on its website). The more flexible models being tested and debated require students to pick a “home base” school where they can play sports and consult with guidance counselors, yet allow them to reach outside for some or all of their academic classes and electives.

“Whether you want to be a welder or a nuclear physicist, it’s highly likely that there are places beyond your local high school that are better able to prepare you for that,” White said. “Within the four walls of the school, there is only so much you can do.”

White argues, too, that a la carte can save taxpayers money. Louisiana plans to cut funding for each public school by about $1,300 for each class a student takes from an outside vendor. But many of the vendors charge far less; their average fees, to be paid by the state, are just $800. The savings are to be divided between the local school district and the state treasury.

Despite White’s promise of taxpayer savings, Louisiana’s program, dubbed Course Choice, hit a roadblock last week when a state judge ruled that private vendors could not be paid with money set aside for public schools. White plans to appeal. In the meantime, he’s pressing ahead with plans for students to begin ordering off the menu in the spring.

The state Board of Education yesterday approved 45 vendors offering hundreds of classes. A few target young students, such as a music class for 5- and 6-year-olds. Most, however, are aimed at the high school crowd.

The Baton Rouge Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, a nonunion industry group, plans to train teens in carpentry, pipefitting and heavy equipment operation, with the state picking up fees of $550 per course. “Our thrust is promoting our industry and giving students an opportunity for careers,” said Robert Clouatre, the chapter’s director of education.

A local construction workers’ union plans to offer classes of its own, in scaffold building, work zone safety and the like.

Louisiana Public Broadcasting has designed a $1,280 online class in environmental science, drawing on its library of TV documentaries. A New Orleans teacher, who runs a small faith-based school in her home, will offer a $900 entrepreneurship course; she is in the midst of revising the curriculum so it does not rely on Scripture to teach financial precepts.

Students across Louisiana can participate as long as they remain enrolled in a traditional public school and take at least one class from that school.

There is no income cutoff, meaning the state could end up paying for wealthy students to take ACT and SAT prep classes taught by private companies such as Princeton Review and Sylvan Learning. White said that prospect didn’t trouble him. “It’s a wise use of state funds to parents to choose the path that’s right for their kids,” he said.

Other states are testing different paths toward the same goal of customizable schools.

Students in Utah can enroll in classes taught by any of 15 state-approved online vendors, including private, for-profit companies. If they don’t like the way geometry is taught in their high school, for instance, the state will pay for them to take the class from an online vendor and deduct that sum from the high school’s appropriation. Students could pick a different vendor for an online Spanish class and a third for U.S. history.

In Michigan, a task force tapped by the governor to reinvent public education has come up with a sweeping plan that would let kids pick and choose offerings from any school that will accept them – so they could take art at their neighborhood school, literature online, biology from one charter school and Spanish from another, with the state parceling out funding to each provider.

Ultimately, public schools might come to specialize, with one focused on science and the next on world languages, said Richard McLellan, the attorney who heads the task force.

Critics often say “the governor is trying to destroy public education as we know it,” McLellan said. “That’s accurate.”

A spokesman for Governor Rick Snyder said he aims to enhance, not destroy, public education, by allowing state funding to flow to any number of quality educators instead of sending the bulk of it to traditional schools. Snyder has not said whether he supports the McLellan plan but has repeatedly called for reinventing the school so students can learn “any time, any place, any way, at any pace.”

One key question about a la carte models is accountability: how to ensure students learn what they need to know when their schooling is so scattered.

The Michigan proposal largely leaves quality control up to course providers; the state wouldn’t review curricula or require all students to take the same standardized tests.

Louisiana took a tougher stance, screening all the vendors who applied to teach courses and rejecting more than half. The state will also require some vendors to test their students regularly and will withhold payments if scores don’t improve.

Another hurdle: It takes sophisticated software to manage such a fragmented education system. Colorado’s Douglas County School District, which serves wealthy suburbs outside Denver, recently sought to test an a la carte program but found it first needed a multi-million-dollar systems upgrade, said Meghann Silverthorn, a school board member.

Perhaps the biggest question, however, is the most basic: Will parents buy into a radically new model of public education?

“It’s disruptive change,” said Idaho schools chief Tom Luna, who has embraced aspects of the a la carte model. “Not so disruptive for kids, but very disruptive for adults.”

Arizona state Senator Rich Crandall understands the hesitation.

He is a big proponent of school choice; earlier this year he introduced a bill that would let students select up to two courses from online providers. Yet Crandall says he is reluctant to allow kids to customize their entire education.

“High school is not going to a catalog and picking a list of seven classes – that’s not a high school experience,” Crandall said.

He thinks, he said, of his teenage daughter. If she were to parcel her schooling among dozens of vendors, who would be responsible for making sure she stayed on track to earn her diploma – or took classes that truly challenged her?

And then there would be this conundrum, he added, laughing: “What football team does she cheer for?”

 

School success stories studied in Ohio

We hear more and more about schools with mostly low-income students that are raising the bar and leading their students to high achievement. These schools go beyond the rhetoric to prove that EVERY child has potential to learn.

Today we heard more of this good news from Ohio.

The Ohio Department of Education, The Ohio State University, and the Ohio Business Roundtable released a study today. Here is what the research group Public Agenda, which conducted the research and wrote the study, said about the findings.

In spite of high poverty, tight budgets, sub-optimal parent participation and ill preparation, there are schools that produce extraordinary students and remarkable stories of success. What makes these schools work so well, and can it be replicated in others?

Public Agenda spoke to principals, teachers, students and parents at nine of Ohio’s high-poverty, high-achieving schools. The nine schools included primary and secondary schools and were a mix of traditional public schools, magnet schools and a charter school.

Our hope is that the insights and ideas that emerged from this qualitative study stimulate a fresh, open and constructive dialogue on improving K-12 education in Ohio and nationally.

Key Attributes of High-Achieving, High-Poverty Schools

A number of practices and qualities consistently stood out across the nine schools we spoke to. We heard again and again that a well-concerted interplay between these attributes contributes to high academic achievement in these schools.

This is not to say that things like adequate funding and parent involvement are not important and can be disregarded. Rather, even in the face of serious challenges, these schools demonstrated that success can still be found from within.

Here, in brief, is what we heard from administrators, teachers, parents and students in these nine successful schools:

  1. Principals lead with a strong and clear vision for their school, engage staff in problem solving and decision making, and never lose sight of their school’s goals and outcomes.
  2. Teachers and administrators are dedicated to their school’s success and committed to making a difference in their students’ lives.
  3. School leaders provide genuine opportunities and incentives for teachers to collaborate and share best practices.
  4. Teachers regard student data as clarifying and helpful. They use it to inform instruction.
  5. Principals and teachers have high expectations for all students and reject any excuses for academic failure.
  6. School leaders and teachers set high expectations for school discipline and student behavior.
  7. Schools offer students nontraditional incentives for academic success and good behavior.
  8. Students feel valued, loved and challenged. They are confident that their teachers will help them succeed and be at their side if they hit a rough patch.
  9. Principals and teachers do not see the lack of parent and community support as an insurmountable barrier to student achievement and learning.
  10. School leaders and teachers seek continuous improvement for both their practices and student achievement. Today’s success is tomorrow’s starting point.
  11. Each school has its own story of change and improvement, yet some commonalities exist.

How Can It Be Sustained? Recommendations from the Research

This study also sought to explore the critical question of how successful schools sustain their achievements, even when faced with challenges. We asked principals, teachers, parents and students about what they believe is needed to help their schools maintain an upward trajectory.

Here are some important recommendations for both achieving and maintaining success.

  • Plan for smooth principal transitions. Change is inevitable.
  • Engage teachers.
  • When hiring, make sure incoming teachers endorse the school’s vision and practices.
  • Leverage a great reputation.
  • Celebrate success.

We celebrate these schools successes! You can find more information and a link to the study here: http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/failure-is-not-an-option.

Our hope is that, as we mentioned last week, that the Ohio system of schools becomes one where high-achieving, high-poverty students become the norm rather than the exception. We thank these schools for leading the way.

 

SCO board chair discusses education innovations

School Choice Ohio’s Board Chair John Mullaney authored a timely guest column titled “Now let’s talk about real education innovations” that was published in The Plain Dealer this weekend. In the column, John makes a powerful argument that we should be having regular conversations about reinventing schools. He also says, “We will soon come to the realization that having the money follow the child is the only way to provide quality education for all children.” Read his reasoning below.

Now let’s talk about real education innovations: John Mullaney

The Plain Dealer’s coverage of blended learning provides a glimmer of hope that, now that elections are over, we will soon come to the realization that having the money follow the child is the only way to provide quality education for all children. Unfortunately, we have not provided a forum for that conversation to take place honestly and without fear of reprisal. Cleveland, with its universities, museums, technological infrastructure and leading businesses, has far too many resources to ignore the challenge.

Our country has seen how the auto industry’s failure to innovate resulted in the United States falling behind in an industry it once commanded. Similarly, resistance at the state and district levels to accelerate innovation in education undermines our educational prominence in the world. Why do we not see the urgency to change?

A Harvard Business Review 2008 article, “Teaming Up to Crack Innovation Enterprise Integration,” stated, “. . . business innovation and integration have two things in common — both are still unnatural acts. . . . Businesses are better at stifling innovation than at capitalizing on it, better at optimizing local operations than at integrating them for the good of the enterprise and its customers. The larger and more complex the organizations, the stronger the status quo can be in repelling both innovation and integration.”

Nothing else that I’ve read better describes the state of the educational system in Ohio. Public schools in too many urban districts are a failing industry. Too many administrators and public officials ignored the competition from successful charter schools and even faith-based schools. These entities were seen not as competition, but as the enemy. The same is now true of real innovations in teaching and learning. In an effort to preserve the status quo and guarantee job security, those in the bunker just hunker down.

Too many teachers who risk innovative approaches do so in spite of their administrators, not because of their support.

Too many are afraid of adapting to new technologies that are likely to guarantee smarter, leaner administrative budgets and improve student-learning outcomes. Good administrators will report up to the “management” that revises standards and tests in order to manipulate data to have the public believe their inferior product is actually working.

There are too many individual school districts. In Lorain County, with a population of 280,000, there are 14 school districts each with high-paid administrators, including superintendents, principals and curriculum directors. The cost to the public every year exceeds $4 million. Much of that work can be done online through more effective use of management technologies.

Too many public dollars are wasted paying for textbooks. Innovations in online texts are occurring every day, yet too many school administrators are slow to adapt them.

Too many school administrators, fearful of change, block innovation preferring to get results from “evidence-based practice” before they do anything. Evidence of what is working, especially in charter, faith-based, independent and online schools, is too often ignored unless it has imprimatur from “the academy” and even the press.

Finally, the state’s solution for training its teachers is in need of radical transformation. Current professional development is simply not up to the task. A complete review of the way the state funds professional development is long overdue. Millions of dollars are wasted each year in a system that has no focus and is organized by whimsy.

The time is ripe for foundations, universities and business leaders in Northeast Ohio to bring together leaders from the fields of educational technology, business, K-12 school systems and higher education to re-imagine schools. These meetings should be public — coordinated and led by local newspapers and news media. Public television, coordinating with the media infrastructure that currently exists within state educational services centers, can and should foster regularly scheduled conversations about reinventing schools and invite public policy officials to be part of the conversation. Most important, let’s invite teachers to participate. Too often, they are left out and simply told what to do once decisions are made.

Together, we can reinvent public education and the way the public funds it, just as the auto industries reinvented themselves.

John Mullaney is executive director of the Nord Family Foundation in Amherst, chairman of the board of School Choice Ohio and serves on the Education Committee of the Ohio Grantmakers Forum.

 

5 reasons to incorporate more career education into high school curricula

Our director of community programs, Sarah Pechan, was on vacation in Arizona this summer and found the whole state buzzing about the issue of school choice. She shares some of the perspective of parents she met while rafting through the Grand Canyon’s Colorado River.

As I mentioned in my post earlier this week, when the conversations on the river or hikes turned to school choice and education policy, a hot topic was incorporating more career education and real world work into high school curricula. Lots of great reasons came up and people were happy to hear that this is already a hot topic in education policy through the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others.

Reason to incorporate more career education #1: To put it bluntly, high school is pretty lame.
Education observers have long noted that students often drop out of high school not because of family issues or because they can’t read. They drop out because they see school as irrelevant to their lives and have become completely disengaged. One of our river guides skipped most of his classes in high school but is an extremely talented young man and now studies physics in college.

Reason to incorporate more career education #2: Hands on jobs often pay pretty darn well.
Our rafting trip leader, a geologist, was passionate about career education: “We need to decrease the stigma against career education. Graduates of career programs often make more money than if they had gone to college, usually in jobs that can’t be outsourced. People who work with their hands often have higher job satisfaction too.”

Reason to incorporate more career education #3: We all could stand to know more about how the world around us works.
Knowing philosophy and literature is really important. But so is knowing how small engines and waste water and personal finance work. I think I would feel like a more well-rounded human being if I had learned more about these things.

Reason to incorporate more career education #4: Our economy could boom from a generation of entrepreneurs and technology-competent workers.
This recent article calls Ohio employers “frustrated” that they can’t find more qualified employees. Likewise, schools like ePrep are preparing entrepreneurs to create small businesses that fuel our economy.

Reason to incorporate more career education #5: Nothing stinks more than spending 4 years and $40,000 to get a degree that you find out your first year on the job you really hate.
The earlier students start exploring career options, the earlier they can start heading in the right direction for them. This means they spend less time in college or post-secondary education wandering from major to major trying to find a good fit.

The lone dissenting voice came from a vascular surgeon in Bel Air (home of the Fresh Prince) who said he didn’t support skills-based education until the graduate education level. He said K-12 should be for students to learn how to study, undergrad should teach students how to think, and graduate school should teach students how to “do” something.

But as someone who personally emerged from high school recognizing that my primary competency was test taking, which is not exactly a helpful skill in the real world, I’ve got to believe that we can do better.

The Cristo Rey network of schools is a great example: they incorporate corporate internships into their college-prep curriculum. Students are engaged in the outside world and learning things they can bring back to the classroom. This mutually reinforcing study-practice rhythm of education makes sense.

What if Ohio ran with this model and expanded it into a broader apprentice system beyond the corporate world? This is what fellow hiker Debby shared has worked brilliantly for her son in Switzerland.

“In Switzerland, we have a strong apprenticeship system and career education system that allows students to explore concrete areas that interest them. As parents we save money on college expenses when our students have already had a chance to narrow down their fields of interest.”

Ohio has some truly outstanding career options through the College TechPrep program, but they require students to sign up for a separate program outside of their regular high school curricula. What if we were to offer biotechnology, graphic design, entertainment, and information technology courses alongside the geometry, AP English, and physics courses to allow all Ohio high schoolers access to a more dynamic high school experience?

- Sarah

Cleveland Transformation Plan

A plan to revamp some of the key features of the Cleveland Metropolitan School District was introduced this month with bipartisan sponsorship in both the Ohio House and Senate.

The plan seeks to move the district, as our friends at 50CAN would say, from islands of excellence to systems of excellence, adopting elements of the district’s shining stars and creating a system that will enable excellence at all levels.

Key elements of the plan include the types of common sense changes that reform advocates have been pointing to for years: changes in union contracts, limits on teacher tenure, “hazard pay” for teachers who work in difficult schools, more flexibility in district finances, performance-based pay for teachers, and the potential of year-round schooling to avoid the summer “brain drain.” See more here and here.

This approach mirrors the Portfolio District approach already in use in Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston. These district offices see their role as ensuring each child has a quality education, NOT necessarily needing those quality educational opportunities to be district schools. These districts manage a portfolio of schools including partnerships with charter and private schools.

Cleveland’s plan comes with an extra bonus for charter schools. If the Cleveland Transformation Plan passed, Cleveland could become the first district in the whole country to share local levy dollars with the high-quality charter schools that they choose to partner with.

There are a couple of elements that we think are important to address, maybe down the road, to make the school choice process in Cleveland as friendly and accessible as possible for parents:

  • Common application: Many portfolio districts and universities across the country use common application systems that allow families to apply to multiple schools with a single application. Including lottery, charter, and district options in one application makes the process easy for families.
  • Transportation: We can’t promise families a castle without providing the carriage. Transportation is expensive but it’s key in enabling true choice.

We are encouraged by the bipartisan support, the use of national best practice, and the way that the plan embraces all Cleveland kids as “our kids,” regardless of the type of public school they attend.

National groups are watching the Cleveland process closely. Mayor Jackson, Superintendent Gordon, and the key legislators will have a lot to be proud of (and a lot of work ahead of them) if their plan is adopted. We hope these changes will give Cleveland leaders the tools they need to turn their islands of excellence into a system of excellence.

 

Public School Choice

By far the most commonly used school choice options exist within our public school systems. Families in rural areas have access to career education, charter schools, online schools, and open enrollment. Families in urban areas have those same options – just swap open enrollment (which is not an option for most urban students) with magnet/lottery schools (which are primarily located in urban districts).

While the scale of public school choice is not tracked on a national scale, district-by-district studies in Ohio show that a substantial portion of families choose a school other than their assigned neighborhood school.

As families have more options, more students are finding schools that are a good fit for them. More students are earning college credit for free during high school. And more students are entering post-secondary education with a better developed sense of their life path.

More and more public school leaders recognize school choice as an important driver of change, introducing an external “customer service” factor into school systems by allowing families to vote with their feet. (Of course, weighted-student funding systems would ramp up families’ influence since the dollars would actually follow students to the school they choose, which is not always the case, but that is a topic for another day.)

In any case, giving parents a choice not only recognizes a basic human right but also introduces an important mechanism to improve quality. Competition drives quality, monopolies stagnate.

For more than a decade, the US Department of Education has been encouraging public school choice with the (recently de-funded) Voluntary Public School Choice grants to districts that pursue broad choice within their district. And national organizations like the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) work with a growing network of public districts across the country that are committed to embracing, rather than shunning, school choice. These districts, called “portfolio districts” are seeing huge successes:

  • In New York, changing the adults is changing the system. They brought in new teachers from nontraditional pipelines using recruiting blitzes seeking new talent. They reworked teacher and union contracts. The results? Dramatic improvement in value-added gains and teacher quality and much improved graduation rates.
  • In Denver, they have focused on making the school choice process user-friendly for parents. They have a single application system for parents to use. They are cracking the code on successful school turnarounds. They have charter schools that house high-needs special education programs. They have opened communication channels and sustained thoughtful exchange with charter schools – to the benefit of ALL Denver students.

These districts are just a couple of examples of a growing number of districts that are embracing school choice. Could Cleveland be next up?

 

Finding the Best School Fit for Your Child

The Picky Parent Guide is a resource that can help prepare parents to find the best learning environment for their child. The guide shares a lot of information for families, and we think the following lists are interesting.

Below you will find two lists from Picky Parent Guide that show signs of a great and not-so-great school fit.   

Signs of a Great Fit between School and Child

  • Your child is eager to go to school (or preschool or day care)
  • Your child acts energized and happy at the end of the school day
  • The pace of learning in core subjects is, overall, about right for your child: challenging but achievable
  • You see tremendous progress in your child’s overall development-academic, physical, social and emotional-throughout each school year
  • Your child feels that his or her abilities and interests are appreciated at school
  • Your child is achieving and performing academically (“cognitively” in younger years) at the level of which he or she is capable
  • Your child has friends and acquaintances who like and accept him or her at school
  • School work and friends are important, but not all-consuming, parts of your child’s life

Signs of a Not-So-Great Fit between School and Child

  • Well into the school year, your child is hesitant, or even adamantly opposed to going to school (and other stressful events in your child’s life can’t explain these feelings)
  • Your child is not just tired, but worn down and unhappy at the end of most school days
  • Your child has made little progress in the past year, either academically, socially, emotionally or physically
  • Your child often says “school is boring”
  • Your child is not performing as well academically as you think he or she can
  • Your child expresses little interest in what he or she is learning at school
  • Your child often says that teachers or other kids do not understand or like him or her
  • Your child doesn’t seem to have any close friends or friendly acquaintances at school
  • Your child shows symptoms of stress only when school’s in session (e.g., sleeplessness, fatigue, excessive clinginess and whining, new nervous habits, regressing to younger behaviors)

Have you found a great school fit for your child? What signs did you notice that helped you know it is a great fit?

 

Dispatch Analysis of Proposed School Rating System

Recently, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Stan Heffner announced proposed changes to the state’s rating system of public school performance. These changes would replace the existing rating system of “Excellent with Distinction, Excellent, Effective, Continuous Improvement, Academic Watch, and Academic Emergency” with a new grading scale of “A-F.”

The Columbus Dispatch provides an interesting analysis of the impact of the new rating system. You can also see how your school would perform under the new system.

What do you think about the proposed switch to an “A-F” rating?