Jan Resseger, longtime Ohio educator, notes some troubles with the proposal to change how federal funds are handled. Reposted with permission.
On Monday, the Plain Dealer‘s Laura Hancock reported that the Ohio Department of Education and the Workforce (Ohio DEW) continues to advance what is an extremely troubling federal Every Student Succeeds Act waiver proposal it plans to submit to the U.S. Department of Education to ask for relief from requirements under federal education law.
Ohio would join other states which have been granted a waiver from federal law under Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s attempt to enforce President Trump’s order to return education to the states. In early June, this blog reminded readers that the waivers undermine the foundational purpose of the U.S. Department of Education: to protect students’ rights and protect them from longstanding inequities and injustices in school funding and education policy across the states.
Hancock summarizes serious dangers posed for Ohio’s public schools by Ohio DEW’s waiver proposal. She also exposes the troubling process by which it was developed without legislative oversight: “Critics of a plan that would allow Ohio to close low-performing schools or convert them to charter schools say it is a monumental policy change that should be debated before the Ohio General Assembly and not quietly proposed in a federal waiver request… Under the draft, schools with low performance over three years face one or more of 16 interventions… (including) school closure, conversion to a charter school, merger with a charter school operator, and reopening under a new management team with the authority to replace staff and programs.”
During the required public comment period before the waiver proposal is submitted, critics of Ohio DEW’s waiver proposal have raised three serious problems in the substance of the proposal.
1. Ohio Waiver Proposal would endanger Title I-A. Hancock explains that Ohio’s waiver proposal would “allow school districts to provide Title I services to any school attendance area that is up to 10% below the district poverty average” — making additional schools eligible to receive Title I….” She reports the worries of critics who point out that because Title I is designed to award federal funding for public schools serving concentrations of the nation’s poorest children, spreading the money to additional schools would create shortages in the neediest schools.
Hancock quotes a comment submitted to Ohio DEW from the national EdTrust and a coalition of 19 state and national public school advocacy organizations: “It’s important to ensure that flexibility does not reduce access to services for the students these programs are designed to support. We are concerned that expanding the schools eligible to receive Title I-A funds could reduce funding for schools with the highest proportion of students from low-income families, contrary to the intent of federal law.”
2. Ohio Waiver Proposal would threaten funding for English Language Learners. Gongwers State Affairs’ Tom Gallick quotes the same formal comment submitted to Ohio DEW by EdTrust, Honesty for Ohio Education, Ohio Federation of Teachers, LULAC Ohio and fifteen other organizations. These critics name the specific danger posed by the waiver proposal for English Language Learners. They explain that the waiver would allow the state to ‘broaden the allowable uses’ of Title II-A, III-A, and IV-A, and IV-B” federal funding and pool the funding for the state to repurpose. Gallick quotes Ohio DEW’s proposed waiver request: “Rather than adhering to the specific use-of-funds restrictions within each individual program, Ohio is requesting flexibility to permit any activity authorized under ESEA across these programs.”
In their comment, the nineteen national and Ohio organizations worry about the potential consolidation of Title III funds, whose use is currently limited by federal law solely for programs to support English language learners: “Ohio schools serve over 80,000 English Learners—a population that has doubled over the past two decades… Yet outcomes for these students continue to lag significantly behind those of their peers… just 39% of English Learners are proficient in English language arts… compared to 60% of all students. These gaps have widened and diluting funding specifically dedicated to English Learners will only further undermine progress at a time when sustained, targeted investment is clearly needed.”
Hancock quotes a comment from Rachel Gonalez, an educator in the Berea City School district about the danger of diverting funding desperately needed to support Ohio’s English Language Learners: “While the Department (Ohio DEW) frames these requests as ‘strategic flexibility’ to reduce ‘bureaucracy,’ my professional experience, and the evidence… suggest that these changes will systematically dismantle essential guardrails that ensure English Learners receive the specialized resources they are federally entitled to… I do not believe that local boards will prioritize the complex needs of EL students through a ‘good faith’ initiative alone when the statutory requirements to do so are removed.”
3. Ohio’s Waiver Proposal would allow Ohio’s far-right, GOP gerrymandered legislature to punish what legislators call “failing” schools by imposing NCLB-type reforms and takeovers. Hancock worries that if Ohio wins a federal waiver to remove federal requirements, the Ohio legislature would impose some of its favorite strategies to try to force school districts to raise scores. At the end of May, when Ohio released its waiver request for public comments, Hancock explained:
“Ohio’s proposal would consolidate federal funding currently dispersed for educator professional development, English-language learners and after-school and summer educational programs. State officials would use the combined funding on programs that reflect their educational priorities. Critics warn these proposals will leave less for the very children the federal law is designed to help. Schools with low performance over three years would face increased state oversight… The state could implement one or more of 16 intervention strategies, including: comprehensive school redesign led by an approved evidence-based provider… merger with a higher-performing school operated by a school management organization… conversion to a charter school … contracting with an organization to turnaround school performance… (and) school closure.”
A 4th problem with Ohio’s federal Waiver Proposal is the stealth process by which it was created. The Ohio Department of Education and the Workforce is responsible only to the Governor. There is no formal requirement for policy input from the legislature or the state board of education, now fully appointed by the Governor.
Looking at the interventions Ohio DEW includes in its federal waiver, Rep. Sean P. Brennan (D-Parma) points out that in the federal waiver proposal, Ohio DEW seems to be trying to work around a recent victory by legislative Democrats who blocked at least one proposed test-and-punish provision in a recent legislative bill. Brennan explains: “Among the (waiver’s) proposed interventions are state-directed curriculum and assessment decisions, mandated instructional materials and professional development, staffing changes, conversion of public schools to charter schools, contracting with outside operators and even school closures.” Brennan adds: “(P)ortions of the proposed language closely resemble provisions that appeared in the as-introduced version of Senate Bill 127 but were ultimately removed during the legislative process.” “When concepts are considered and then removed by the General Assembly, it raises legitimate questions when those same ideas reappear through administrative action… The legislature’s role in shaping education policy must be respected.”