Pyramid Hill lights up
Women of Excellence Awards
16th Annual Music Festival
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2009 > February > 04 > Entry
A review of Strickland’s education plan, Part 1
If you care deeply about education in Ohio, it was hard last week not to be impressed by Gov. Ted Strickland’s proposed overhaul of the state’s system for education kids. Even if you don’t agree with all the particulars of the plan (and there are a lot of particulars), it’s admirable the way Strickland pushed education to the very top of the state’s agenda.
That is, in my mind, where it belongs. A heavy investment in education over an extended period could pay dividends for the state long term as better educated kids join the workforce, bringing new skills and creativity to the state’s economy.
And it was pretty amazing how many big ideas Strickland proposed. One one of his five or six top proposals could have been front page news by itself. And the pure volume of proposals he threw out was almost overwhelming for those of us trying to digest what it all means.
I’ve gone back through the state of the state speech and pulled out as many of the education proposals as I could. I’ve also had the opportunity to interview Strickland twice in the last week, giving him an opportunity to clarify some of his plans. Here is a review of what he has put forward:
—An “evidence-based approach to funding. This idea isn’t too far afield from the architecture for funding that was in last year’s effort to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot dictating a funding method. Here’s how this works. A committee named by the governor will determine what makes up a “quality” education based on factors like class size, materials, etc. The committee puts price tags on those items and boils down the per-student cost. Schools then receive state aid based, theoretically, on what it actually costs to educate kids.
The one big thing about this type of approach is it is almost always more costly. You have a group that builds the education budget independent of the legislature, which has to figure out how to pay for it. This will be something to keep an eye on.
—Teaching new subjects. This idea made traditionalists squirm, I’m sure. Strickland said kids need new skills, like “media literacy” and “global awareness” that he intends to see added to the curriculum. The problem with adding new topics is that traditional topics tend to get squeezed to make room. Do we want kids spending less time on history to study “global awareness?” Perhaps the longer school day will help with this.
—New styles of learning. Strickland favors a “project-based” approach that attempts interdisciplinary instruction through service projects or other real-world experiences. This sounds good in concept, but again too heavy a tilt here can crowd out time spent making sure kids are proficient in the basics like reading, writing and math.
—Student-based learning. While this was not defined in detail, I wondered if this meant every student would be given an “individual education plan” to follow. Again, not a bad idea in concept but difficult to execute because paperwork piles up if they are done for EVERY student.
—Longer school year. This has been talked about a lot. Pro: more learning time for kids. Con: cost. If I were a teacher, I would expect full hourly wage for 20 more days of work. Will Ohio ask them to do it for less? We’ll have to see. If it’s full wage, teacher incomes go up (good thing) and perhaps teaching looks a little more attractive pay-wise? But it’s us taxpayers who will foot the bill.
—Longer school day. While talking about extra hours in the school day, Strickland really threw everything but the kitchen sink out there in terms of what the kids might do in that time — tutoring, service projects, intervention, wellness programs. A longer school day can be a benefit, but I’m a bit worried that these hours could end up unfocused and therefore less effective.
—The Ohio Academic Olympics. This was one proposal that just sounds like a great idea. Perhaps Ohio could unify the many academic competitions (Science Fair, History Day, Odyssey of the Mind, etc.) into one huge event. Media would cover it. Smart kids would get celebrated. I love it.
—Teacher residency program. This has been written about a lot already, but the full proposal is a really radical idea. Yes, there’s this idea of training teachers like doctors with heavy mentoring and frequent evaluation. But also in this plan is a redefinition of the teacher career ladder that adds new high-end steps for teachers to strive for and, presumably, would form the basis of an argument for more pay for the highest achievers. The model Strickland proposes looks much like the peer-review approach pioneered by teachers’ unions Ohio urban districts like Cincinnati and Toledo that I don’t think have gotten enough credit for their creativity. However, this set up can raise costs for personnel.
—Make it easier to fire a teacher for cause. This is one thing I wanted to ask Strickland about but didn’t get a chance to. The logistics of making this change probably require legislation and would probably involved a battle with teachers’ unions. And its not clear exactly what Strickland would do differently. Stay tuned on this one.
—Scholarships for students who want to teach high demand subjects. Again, this sounds like a good idea but, again, needs a stream of cash to sustain it.
—Redesign colleges of education and reward them for preparing the best teachers. Need more details here too. We’re all in favor of better prepared teachers but Ohio has 50 teacher training programs. Who gets to say which are the best quality and by what measure?
—Empower principals to manage schools. This is one of those ideas that sounds great in concept but is tougher in practice. A GOOD principal should be empowered. Maybe we should release them from red tape and give them a degree of independence from the school board. But what about mediocre or bad principals? Do we really want to give them a free hand? More details on what Strickland meant would be helpful.
I’ll cover the second half of Strickland’s proposals in a follow up tomorrow.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: School Funding, Schools and Politics, Teaching and Learning
Comments
By Oldprof
February 5, 2009 9:12 PM | Link to this
Again and again, I hear “the problem is cost.” OK, do we subscribe to Dim Warner Cable, do we own big TVs, do we drive SUVs? You get what you pay for. Sooner or later we need to realize that in a nation where the wealthiest 400 pay an average of 17% in federal income taxes (and a similar sweetheart deal in state and local taxes), it’s possible and even wise to tap those economic strata for more money. After all, the wealthy are the ones that we’re bailing out the most, now. Time for TAX INCREASES for those who can afford them.By Laura
February 5, 2009 8:29 PM | Link to this
I have a concern with the idea of extending the length of the school day. This is probably fine for high school students, but to expect elementary and especially primary students to pay attention and stay alert for a longer amount of time is not reasonable. Primary-aged students are already dragging by the end of the day. Considering that we have students whose parents work and who get up at the same time as their parents, that is an extremely long day. In addition, as much as we can say “just put kids to bed earlier”, it isn’t going to happen. I frequently have students whose parents keep them out very late for various activities, such as church, sports practices and games as well as the parent’s activities. There is also the problem of kids staying up to watch television. The answer seems like a simple one, but our society has changed to revolve around evening activites much more so than when most adults were children. The medical community already regularly warns that we are all, including children, sleep deprived. Our school day is already longer than it was when I went to school and we also had morning and afternoon recess as well as an hour for lunch. Somehow, our teachers were able to get everything in and we learned. Even allowing for earlier teaching of skills and more information being taught, if student’s behavior was appropriate, and parental expectations were consistent with the goals of the schools, we would be able to get everything in during the length of day we now have.