Arts on Line Education Update September 8, 2014

1) Ohio News

•130th Ohio General Assembly: The Ohio House and Senate are not scheduled to meet in session this week.

The Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission (OCMC) is scheduled to meet on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 1:30 PM in hearing room 313.  The committee on Education, Public Institutions, Miscellaneous and Local Government will meet at 10:15 AM in hearing room 114.  This is the committee that is reviewing provisions regarding public education in Article VI Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution. In April 2014 Chad Readler, chair of the committee, recommended that the obligation of the Ohio General Assembly to ensure a “thorough and efficient” system of schools in Ohio be removed from Article VI Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution.  Information about the agenda for this committee meeting is available at
http://www.ocmc.ohio.gov/ocmc/committees/educ_pubinst_misc_localgovt;jsessionid=b69ace5d0ca2f51b0a88d1b72f8c

•Update on HB597:  Last week the House Rules and Reference Committee, chaired by Representative Huffman, met and accepted a substitute bill for HB597 (Thompson/Huffman) Repeal/Replace Common Core Standards, and also amended the bill. Details about the substitute bill and amendment are below.

•Order Issued in Early Voting Lawsuit:  U.S. District Judge Peter Economus, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order on September 4, 2014 in NAACP v. Husted.  The order changes the voting schedule in Ohio for this November 4, 2014 election.  It restores some early voting hours, adds a Sunday to the voting schedule, and restores “Golden Week” voting, in which individuals can register to vote and cast a vote on the same day.

The decision found that SB238 (LaRose), signed into law on February 21, 2014, violates the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 when it reduced opportunities for Ohioans to vote early.

The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, the Ohio Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, and others in May 2014.  Secretary of State Jon Husted is expected to appeal the ruling.

See the decision at http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/072_order_granting_pi.pdf

2)  National News

•Congress Returns:  Members of the U.S. House and Senate will return to Washington, D.C. this week after summer recess.  Lawmakers are expected to consider extending the spending authority of the federal government through mid December to avoid a “government shutdown” on October 1, 2014, the start of the new fiscal year, and consider other bills before recessing by the end of September to return to the campaign trails in preparation for the November 4, 2014 election.

The House, led by Republicans and House Speaker John Boehner, is expected to consider bills about the Export-Import Bank, a freeze on states taxing access to the Internet, workforce development, energy production, and lowing business taxes.

The U.S. Senate, led by the Democrats and Majority Leader Harry Reid, is expected to consider bills about raising the minimum wage, campaign finance reform, and lowering college costs.

Legislation to authorize President Obama to use military force in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic separatists, and take action against the Russians in the Ukraine is being discussed, but is not likely to surface during this short session.

See “Congress Coming Back, Must Act to Avoid Shutdown”, by Andrew Taylor, Associated Press, September 7, 2014 at http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_RETURNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-07-12-36-04

•Appeal Filed in California Teacher Tenure Decision:  The Associated Press reported on September 2, 2014 that California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed an appeal in the teacher-tenure decision Vergara v. California on August 29, 2014 on behalf of Governor Jerry Brown and the state. A tentative decision was issued by Judge Rolf Treu of the Los Angles County Superior Court on June 10, 2014, and a final decision released on August 28, 2014.  The decision declares five sections of California state law regarding teacher employment unconstitutional, including the two year review process before teachers are provided continuing employment; the due process procedures for dismissing teachers; and the use of seniority in layoff decisions. According to the decision, these policies disproportionately expose minority and disadvantaged students to “ineffective teachers”, in violation of the California Constitution’s equal protection clause.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of nine students in the Los Angeles City School Districts by Students Matter, founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneur David Welch. Others, including Eli Broad, have funded the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs argued, and the judge agreed, that California’s teacher tenure laws caused more ineffective teachers to end-up teaching minority and disadvantaged students to their detriment. The defendants, including the California Teachers Association, argued that the tenure laws have little impact on the quality of teachers in a particular school, because “well-managed” schools had no problem dismissing poor teachers.

According to the Associated Press, Governor Brown is appealing the decision so that a higher court can review it and clarify it, since it has statewide impact.

See “California Governor Appeals Teacher-Tenure Ruling” by The Associated Press, Education Week, September 2, 2014 at
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/08/30/california-appeals-teacher-tenure-ruling_ap.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

•Florida District Reverses Decision:  According to Education Week, the Lee County Florida board of education voted on September 2, 2014 to reverse its August 27, 2014 decision to opt out of all state-mandated testing.  The decision came when a board member, Mary Fischer, informed her colleagues that she was changing her mind after fully understanding the possible consequences for the district, and the board took another vote.

Lee County was the first of 66 counties in Florida to formally pass a resolution regarding testing, although other Florida counties are considering taking the same action.  The results of standardized testing in Florida are currently used to rate schools, principals, and teachers, and impact teacher salaries and funding for school districts.

See “Florida District Reverses Decision to Opt Out of State Testing” by Catherine Gewertz, Education Week, September 2, 2014 at
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2014/09/the_lee_county_florida_school.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS3

3)  More on HB597

The Ohio House Rules and Reference Committee, chaired by Representative Huffman, met on September 4, 2014 and accepted a substitute bill for HB597 (Thompson/Huffman) Repeal/Replace Common Core Standards, and approved an amendment to the bill.  The substitute bill addresses some concerns that have been raised during hearings about the time line for developing new Ohio standards and assessments by 2017, and language in the bill about the science and English language arts standards. The amendment requires that the academic content standards review committees, created in HB487 (Brenner), compare the Common Core with the Massachusetts standards and use that information to make recommendations to the State Board of Education about improving the standards.

Overall the substitute bill does the following:
-Allows school districts to opt out of state-developed standards, but not the required tests.
-Delays implementation of new Ohio standards until 2018-2019 school year.
-Prohibits the State Board from developing model curricula.
-Eliminates language that could have supported the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in the science standards.  Instead the substitute bill adds the requirement that students be able to “analyze, critique, and review” in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories.
-Removes the requirement that the standards emphasize “rigor”.

The committee also received testimony on the bill during its September 4, 2014 hearing.

Testifying in support of the bill were Katherine Whitesel, parent; Wende Graves; and Deborah K. Guebert, math tutor.

Testifying in opposition to the bill were Jim Mahoney, executive director of Battelle for Kids; Brent May, Plain Local School District; Marcia Barnhart, vice president of the Ohio Association for Curriculum and Assessment; Melanie Bates, Cincinnati Board of Education; Kevin Dalton, president of the Toledo Federation of Teachers; Sue Owen, executive director of the Ohio PTA; and Dr. Suzanne Allen, president of Philanthropy Ohio.

The testimony and other documents about HB597 are available at
http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/rules-and-reference

Next Steps:  The Rules and Reference Committee is not scheduled to meet this week.  The bill is expected to clear the committee, perhaps by the end of the month, but probably won’t be considered by the Ohio House until after the November 4, 2014 election.

Details of changes to HB597:

•Sections 3301.07 – Eliminates the ability of the State Board to address “other such factors the Board finds necessary”, when developing state standards.

•Section 3301.078 – (A), (B), and (C) Prohibits the State Board of Education and the Ohio Department of Education from implementing the CCSS after the current school year; prohibits the use of Ohio’s standards for science and social studies; prohibits the use of assessments developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or other consortia; prohibits Ohio from joining consortia that develop assessments; limits content standards to specific language prescribed in law; prohibits the state from withholding funds from school districts or schools for failure to use or adopt state academic content standards, but removes the same prohibition regarding tests; states that data regarding students and teachers and required by the U.S. Department of Education shall be released only in aggregate form.  Personal identifiable data about students and teachers cannot be released to the U.S. DOE without written permission of the individual.

•Section 3301.079 – Requires that the State Board of Education adopt standards that are new, distinct, and independent from CCSS in English language arts, math, science and social studies by June 2017, and prescribes for each content area what the new standards will emphasize. Removes the requirement that the new standards emphasize “rigor” and removes the definition of “rigor”.

Restores specifications that academic content standards “emphasize coherence, focus, and essential knowledge and shall be more challenging and demanding when compared to international standards.”  The standards shall include “essential academic content and skills that students are expected to know and be able to do at each grade level; instill lifelong learning by providing essential knowledge and skills based in the liberal arts tradition, as well as science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and career-technical education, and be clearly written, transparent, and understandable by parents, educators, and the general public.”

States that the English language arts standards shall require a systematic approach to teaching phonemic awareness and phonics; “require at least 80 percent of reading instruction focus on imaginative literature, including poetry, drama, and fiction”, rather than “80 percent of English study”, and “literary works of merit and cultural and historical significance.”  Language requiring that literary works of British and American authors prior to 1970 be taught in grades 8-12 has been removed.

This section of law also states that “The standards in science shall be based in core existing disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics; incorporate grade-level mathematics and be referenced to the mathematics standards; focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and encourage students to analyze, critique, and review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the standards.” The language prohibiting “political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another” was removed, but the bill states further that nothing in the standards is to be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non religion.

Also prohibits the State Board from adopting any model curricula for any content area, but doesn’t say what should happen to model curricula already developed.

•Section 3301.0712 – States that the State Board shall adopt a nationally recognized, norm-referenced, and standardized assessment that is used for college admission.  Removes language referring to “college and career readiness.”; requires that a “series” of assessments, rather than 7 end of course exams, be developed in the areas of English language arts, math, science, American history, and American government; and makes other changes regarding assessments.

•Section 3301.0714 – States that access to student data and information “…shall be restricted to the fulfillment of contractual obligations to process data on behalf of the school district. Such contract shall include a stipulation that the personally identifiable information shall not be shared with additional parties.”

•Section 3301.0718 – New section.  Requires that the Ohio General Assembly and newly created academic content steering subcommittee approve new academic content standards before they go into effect.

Creates the academic content steering subcommittee and designates its membership.  States that the subcommittee shall oversee the development of the standards documents, and creates separate subcommittees for each subject area in language arts, math, science, and social studies to create new academic content standards.

•Sections 3313.60, 3313.6020, 3313.61, 3313.612, 3313.618, and 3328.01 – Eliminates references to “model curriculum” and “end of course exams”.

•Repeals Section 9 of Am. Sub. HB487 regarding state assessments.

•Section 4:  Temporarily replaces CCSS and standards for science and social studies with standards that are “consistent with the standards adopted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as they existed prior to December 21, 2010.”  These standards shall be effective for the 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 school years. Requires that the State Board adopt or develop elementary and secondary assessments aligned to the Massachusetts standards. Requires the State Board to adopt new academic content standards for Ohio for the 2018-2019 school year.

•Section 5:  Requires that the State Board of Education adopt or develop elementary and secondary assessments aligned to new Ohio standards in English language arts, math, science, and social studies for use during the 2018-19 school year.

•Section 6:  Requires the State Board to compare the new standards and new assessments with standards previously adopted, and consider public comment when evaluating the standards.  Requires the State Board to submit a report outlining the results of the comparisons of the standards to the General Assembly and the Governor.

•Section 7:  States that assessments administered in the 2013-2014 school year be administered in the 2014-2015 school year.

4) Update on Common Core Testing

The debate in Ohio about HB597 (Thompson/Huffman) and the implementation of the Common Core State Standards and assessments follows a national trend that is explained by Catherine Gewertz in a September 3, 2014 article for Education Week.

She writes that waivers from the federal requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, granted to states by the U.S. Department of Education, require states to administer assessments that reflect “college and career ready standards” during the 2014-15 school year.  In 2010 most states adopted the Common Core State Standards and joined one of two consortia that were created to develop new assessments aligned to the CCSS, to meet the federal requirement. The two consortia are the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC).  They received a $360 million grant from  U.S. Department of Education to develop assessments specifically aligned to CCSS.

However, the recent debate at national and state levels about the content and origin of the CCSS, and concerns about the cost and the number of tests students are required to take, have caused some states to drop CCSS, drop the consortia-developed assessments, or drop both. According to the article this situation raises concerns about how test results can be compared among states in the future, when there are questions about the alignment of assessments to college and career ready standards.

According to the article, about 24 states plan to use their own assessments, or have not decided what to use this school year. An interactive map attached to the article shows the following:
-States implementing the Smarter Balanced assessments: Hawai’i, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Missouri, West Virginia, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Delaware.
-States implementing the PARCC assessments:  Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island
-States using other assessments or a combination of assessments:  Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Indiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Alaska.
-Undecided states:  Arizona, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Massachusetts.

See “Big Year Looms for Common-Core Testing” by Catherine Gewertz, Education Week September 3, 2014 at
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/09/03/03assessment.h34.html

5)  Attendance Matters

Attendance Works released on September 3, 2014 a study based on data from the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), which shows that students with higher absenteeism rates have lower scores on NAEP assessments when compared to peers with fewer absences.  The study is entitled “Absences Add Up: How School Attendance Influences Student Success” by Alan Ginsburg, Phyllis Jordan, and Hedy Chang.

The researchers found that each year an estimated 5-7.5 million students miss nearly a month of school. NAEP tests in math and reading are administered every two years to a sample of students in all 50 states and in 21 large cities. The researchers found that the lost instructional time for absent students, as little as three days the month before the NAEP tests were administered, resulted in lower NAEP scores at “…every age, in every racial and ethnic group and in every state and city examined” when compared to students with fewer absences.

The following are some of the key findings of the study:

-Poor attendance is a national challenge.  The researchers found that one in five students in both the fourth and eighth grades reported missing three or more days of school in the month before the NAEP tests were administered.  Montana and New Mexico had the highest absenteeism rate at 25 percent at the fourth grade and Arizona, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Wyoming had a 25 percent absentee rate at the eighth grade.

The states with the lowest absentee rates at the fourth grade are California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas and the Department of Defense (DOD), and Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Texas, Vermont, and DOD schools at the eighth grade.

The authors note, “Absenteeism rates are especially high in some of the 21 large cities where the NAEP is administered to a sample of students. In Detroit, for instance, about a third of the students reported missing three or more days in the past month, compared to the 20 percent national average. Cleveland, the District of Columbia, Milwaukee and Philadelphia also had high rates.”

-Student attendance affects academic performance.  According to the report, “The association between poor attendance and lower NAEP scores is robust and holds for every state and for each of the 21 urban districts regardless of size, region or composition of the student population.”

“Students reporting missing 3 or more days of school in the prior month had lower average NAEP scores in reading and math than students with fewer absences. In fourth grade, the absentee students scored an average 12 points lower on the reading assessment than those with no absences — more than a full grade level on the NAEP achievement scale. In eighth grade, absentee students scored an average 18 points lower on the math assessment.”

-Poor attendance contributes to the achievement gap.  Students eligible for free and reduced price meals and in fourth grade are 30 percent more likely to miss three or more days of school a month prior to the NAEP exams, and in eighth grade 40 percent more likely to miss three days of school. Low-income students in fourth grade with poor attendance scored 10 points lower when compared to students with perfect attendance.

The study notes a growing number of studies about the importance of student attendance and strategies for reducing absenteeism, and makes the following recommendations to improve attendance:

-Promote a standard definition to calculate chronic absenteeism, which should include excused and unexcused absences and days missed due to suspensions or students switching schools.  A national definition should be developed to standardize reporting across states.  Attendance Works recommends that states define chronic absenteeism as a student missing 10 percent of the school year, regardless of the reason.
-Urge all states to track attendance through longitudinal student databases.  Currently six states do not include attendance and absences in statewide systems.
-Urge all states to include student attendance and chronic absenteeism on school and district report cards.
-Engage parents so that they understand the importance of attendance and how to monitor student absenteeism.
-Develop community-wide strategies to help parents improve attendance, such as interventions to address transportation and health challenges in families.
-Adopt school/district policies that flag poor attendance early, monitor students, and engage parents and students in strategies that address barriers to attendance.
-Strategically allocate resources in communities to support strategies that remove barriers for student attendance.
-Invest in research to find other strategies to reduce chronic absenteeism.

Attendance Rates in Ohio:  According to the state-by-state analysis included in the report, 20 percent of grade four students and 21 percent of grade  eight students in Ohio were absent from school three or more days prior to the administration of the NAEP exams.  These percentages are just slightly higher than the national average of 19 percent for grade four students and 20 percent for grade eight students.

Math scores on NAEP were 14 points lower and reading scores were 10 points lower for 4th grade students in Ohio who missed three or more days of school, compared to students with no absences.

Reading scores on NAEP were 16 points lower and math scores were 25 points lower for 8th grade students in Ohio who missed three or more days of school, compared to students with no absences.

The report also includes data for the Cleveland Metropolitan School District.  Twenty-five percent of Cleveland students in grade four and 30 percent of grade eight students missed three or more days of school prior to the administration of the NAEP exams.

Math scores on NAEP for students in the Cleveland school district were 9 points lower and reading scores were 6 points lower for 4th grade students who missed three or more days of school, compared to students with no absences.

Math scores on NAEP for students in the Cleveland school district were 9 points lower and reading scores were 7 points lower for 8th grade students who missed three or more days of school, compared to students with no absences.

Patrick O’Donnell of the Cleveland Plain Dealer examined the Attendance Works report, and writes that the difference between NAEP scores for students in Cleveland Metropolitan School District who missed three or more days of school and students with zero absences was not as large compared to other cities and the national average. The national average number of points between the scores of students who miss school and those who don’t is 13 points in math for grade four students; 12 points in reading for grade four students; 18 points in math for grade eight students; and 13 points in reading for grade eight students. He notes that other studies have found that children with good classroom attendance are affected academically when other students miss a lot of school.  High absentee rates causes “classroom churn” in which teachers are reviewing and doing remediation, rather than providing instruction in new content areas.

See “Missing a few days of Cleveland schools doesn’t hurt that much, national study reports” by Patrick O’Donnell, The Plain Dealer, September 3, 2014 at http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/09/missing_a_few_days_of_clevelan.html.

See “Absences Add Up:  How School Attendance Influences Student Success” by Alan Ginsburg, Phyllis Jordan, and Hedy Chang, Attendance Works, September 3, 2014 at http://www.attendanceworks.org/research/absences-add/

6) More on Charter Schools

Education Week has created an interactive map that provides recent information about the number of charter schools in each state, the types of charter school authorizers, referred to in Ohio as “sponsors”, and the number of active authorizers.  Here is a summary of the information:

•Types of authorizers (sponsors) of charter schools:  LEA: Local Education Agency; SEA: State Education Agency; HEI: Higher Education Institutions; NFP:  Not for Profit Organizations; NEG: Non-Education Government Entities; and ICB: Independent Chartering Boards.

•States without charter schools:  Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kentucky, West Virginia, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Alabama.

•States with the most types of authorizers (4-5)
-Louisiana: 117 charter schools; 11 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA, HEI, NFP, NEG
-Arizona: 530 charter schools; 27 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA, ICB, HEI
-Missouri: 37 charter schools; 11 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA, ICB, HEI
-Indiana: 73 charter schools; 8 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, ICB, HEI, and NEG
-Ohio:  365 charter schools;  65 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA, HEI, NFP
-Hawai’i:  32 charter schools; 1 active authorizers; types of authorizers: ICB, HEI, NFP, NEG

•States with three types of authorizers
-Minnesota:  154 charter schools; 27 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, HEI, NFP
-Wisconsin: 241 charter schools; 101 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, HEI, NEG
-Illinois: 136 charter schools; 12 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA, ICB
-Nevada:  32 charter schools; 4 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, ICB, HEI
-Oklahoma:  24 charter schools; 7 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, HEI, NEG
-North Carolina:  107 charter schools; 1 active authorizer; types of authorizers:  LEA, SEA, HEI
-New York:  219 charter schools; 4 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA, HEI

•States with 2 types of authorizers
-New Hampshire:  17 charter schools; 2 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA
-Connecticut:  17 charter schools; 1 active authorizer; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA
-Pennsylvania:  175 charter schools; 44 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA
-Maryland:  51 charter schools; 6 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA
-Delaware:  22 charter schools; 2 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA
-Texas:  584 charter schools; 17 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA
-Colorado: 187 charter schools; 46 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, ICB
-New Mexico: 98 charter schools; 19 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA
-California: 1064 charter schools; 319 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA
-Idaho: 44 charter schools; 14 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, ICB
-Oregon:  123 charter schools; 76 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA
-Washington:  1 charter school; 2 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, ICB
-Florida:  577 charter schools; 47 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, HEI
-Georgia:  106 charter schools; 36 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA
-South Carolina:  55 charter schools; 18 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, ICB
-Tennessee:  55 charter schools; 6 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, SEA
-Michigan:  275 charter schools; 30 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, HEI
-Utah:  87 charter schools; 4 active authorizers; types of authorizers: LEA, ICB

States with one authorizer
-Alaska:  27 charter schools; 8 active authorizers; type of authorizer: LEA
-Wyoming: 4 charter schools; 2 active authorizers; type of authorizer: LEA
-Kansas: 15 charter schools; 11 active authorizers; type of authorizer: LEA
-Arkansas: 32 charter schools; 1 active authorizer; type of authorizer: SEA
-Mississippi:  0 charter schools; 1 active authorizer; type of authorizer: ICB
-Virginia:  4 charter schools; 3 active authorizers; type of authorizer: LEA
-New Jersey:  86 charter schools; 1 active authorizer; type of authorizer: SEA
-Massachusetts:  77 charter schools; 1 active authorizer; type of authorizer: SEA
-Maine:  2 charter schools; 1 active authorizer; type of authorizer: ICB
-Iowa:  3 charter schools; 3 active authorizers; type of authorizer: LEA

See “Map:  Who Oversees Charters in Your State?”  Education Week, August 27, 2014 at
http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/charter-authorizers-by-state.html?cmp=ENL-EU-MOSTPOP

7)  Bills Introduced

•HB616 (Devitis) Higher Education Textbooks: With regard to the selection, availability, and purchase of textbooks that are required for a course offered by any state institution of higher education.


 

This update is written weekly by Joan Platz, Research and Knowledge Director for the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education.  The purpose of the update is to keep arts education advocates informed about issues dealing with the arts, education, policy, research, and opportunities.  The distribution of this information is made possible through the generous support of the Ohio Music Education Association ( www.omea-ohio.org), Ohio Art Education Association ( www.oaea.org), Ohio Educational Theatre Association ( www.ohedta.org); OhioDance (www.ohiodance.org), and the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education ( www.oaae.net).

Advertisements

About OAAE

Since our founding in 1974, by Dr. Dick Shoup and Jerry Tollifson, our mission has always been to ensure the arts are an integral part of the education of every Ohioan. Working at the local, state, and federal levels through the efforts of a highly qualified and elected Board of Directors, our members, and a professional staff we have four primary areas of focus: building collaborations, professional development, advocacy, and capacity building. The OAAE is funded in part for its day-to-day operation by the Ohio Arts Council. This support makes it possible for the OAAE to operate its office in Columbus and to work statewide to ensure the arts are an integral part of the education of every Ohioan. Support for arts education projects comes from the Ohio Arts Council, Ohio Music Education Association, Ohio Art Education Association, Ohio Educational Theatre Association, VSA Ohio, and OhioDance. The Community Arts Education programs of Central Ohio are financially assisted by the Franklin County Board of Commissioners and the Greater Columbus Arts Council. We gratefully acknowledge and appreciate the financial support received from each of these outstanding agencies and organizations.
This entry was posted in Arts On Line and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s