12/27/08

Cincinnati Enquirer op-ed

Craig Burford

It is difficult to give much credence to the recommendations advanced by Terry Ryan (“Ohio can improve education while cutting costs,” Dec. 13) on how the state should invest its limited resources in public education, given the performance of community schools sponsored by the Fordham Institute, of which he is a vice president.

In Fiscal Year 2008, Fordham-sponsored schools received $11,585,038 in state foundation payments. With 2,705 students enrolled in their schools, this equates to an annual state investment of $4,283 per student. What has been the state’s return on investment?

A review of Fordham’s own 2007-08 Accountability Report, “Climbing to Quality,” reveals that of the eight community schools they sponsored, two are rated by the state of Ohio as being in Academic Emergency, four are in Academic Watch and two are in Continuous Improvement.

Perhaps what is even more telling is that the state’s academic rating only increased in two of the eight schools and six out of eight of the schools did not make Adequate Yearly Progress – the measure used to determine whether or not students are moving in a positive direction toward achieving state academic standards.

Compare the state’s investment in Fordham’s schools to the $48,000,000 investment in the Educational Service Center (ESC) operations which Mr. Ryan suggests be further consolidated. During the same time period, ESCs provided direct services to 270,823 students or 15.5 percent of the state’s student population – many of whom are at-risk students including students with disabilities. This is a state investment of $177 per student.

The return on investment? Ohio’s ESCs employ over 13,100 individuals, 90 percent of whom are in the buildings and districts providing direct services to students, teachers and other district personnel every day.

During the 2007-2008 academic school year, Ohio’s ESCs hosted 10,475 different professional development activities attended by 242,852 total attendees. ESCs also provided special education services, student programs, implemented state and federal regulations, and provided other vital programs and services including cooperative purchasing, natural gas pooling, insurance consortia, and more – all of which sought to increase the capacity of districts and the state while containing or driving down costs.

Are ESCs making a difference? Do districts want their services? You bet. In an October 2003 report regarding an aligned regional support system for Ohio schools by the Strategic Research Group, researchers found, “School district personnel indicated there is a heavy reliance on these centers to provide services they have no other means of obtaining.”

Ohio needs solid education policy options that build on the state’s existing infrastructure and serve to advance the needs of all children regardless of where they live and learn, not knee-jerk reactions that ignore the positive impact of existing programs and services that reduce district costs and improve the health, safety and academic well-being of Ohio’s 1.8 million school children.

Craig Burford is executive director of the Ohio ESC Association in Columbus.