Arts on Line Education Update April 13, 2015

Ohio Alliance for Arts Education

Arts on Line Education Update

Joan Platz

April 13, 2015

1)  Ohio News

  • 131st General Assembly: The Ohio General Assembly returns to Columbus from spring break this week, and is expected to finalize work on HB64 (Smith) the $72.3 billion state spending plan for FY16-17.

The House Finance Committee, chaired by Representative Smith, will meet on April 14, 2014 at 3:00 PM in hearing room 313, to receive a substitute bill for HB64 (Smith) Biennial Budget. The substitute bill is likely to include adjustments to Governor Kasich’s school funding formula and tax reform plan.  The committee has also scheduled meetings to receive testimony on Sub. HB64 on April 15, 16, and 17, 2015 at 9:00 AM in hearing room 313.  The Ohio House is expected to vote on the budget next week and send it to the Senate for consideration. The state budget must be approved by July 1, 2015, the beginning of the next fiscal year.

The House Education Committee, chaired by Representative Hayes, will meet on April 14, 2014 at 9:00 AM in hearing room 017, and consider three bills:  HB74 (Brenner) Primary-Secondary Assessments; HB25 (Kunze) Food-Drink Sales; and HB15 (Gerberry) State Board of Education Membership, which would change the voting membership of the State Board to consist of a member from each of several electoral districts with boundaries coinciding with the state’s Congressional districts, and a president to be appointed by the Governor if there is an even number of such electoral districts.

The House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Representative McClain, will meet on April 14, 2015 at 1:30 PM in hearing room 121 and receive testimony on two school-related bills:

-HB44 (Gerberry) Lottery Profits-Schools, would require that a portion of lottery profits be distributed annually on a per pupil basis to public and chartered nonpublic schools.

-HB99 (Curtin) Income Tax-School Funding, would require that an amount equal to state income tax collections, less amounts contributed to the Ohio political party fund via the income tax checkoff, be distributed for the support of elementary, secondary, vocational, and special education programs.

The Senate Finance Subcommittee on Education, chaired by Senator Hite, will meet on April 15, 2015 at 2:30 PM in hearing room 110.  The committee will hear sponsor testimony on HB2 (Dovilla/Roegner) Charter Schools, and, pending introduction and referral, sponsor testimony on a charter school bill sponsored by Senator Peggy Lehner.

  • Update on OCMC:  The Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission (OCMC) and its committees met on April 9, 2015.  According to articles about the Commission in Hannah News, the 32 member commission selected newly appointed Representative Ron Amstutz as co-chair, replacing former Representative William Batchelder. Senator Charleta Tavares will continue to serve as the other co-chair.

The full commission also voted to recommend the repeal of some obsolete provisions in the Ohio Constitution that authorize the creation of Courts of Conciliation and Supreme Court commissions. This is the first major recommendation that the full Commission has adopted since it began meeting in 2011.

The Bill of Rights and Voting Committee and the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch Committee also moved proposals forward.

Richard Saphire, chair of the Bill of Rights and Voting Committee and professor of law at the University of Dayton, presented to the full commission recommendations to retain Article I, Sections 2-4 of the Ohio Constitution, without any changes in the content, but with some changes in the way the sections are organized. Article I includes provisions that guarantee the right to alter, reform, or abolish government; the right to assembly; the right to bear arms.

The Legislative Branch and Executive Branch Committee agreed to send to the full commission two constitutional changes, which would affect Article II Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution, Election and Term of State Legislators.

One proposal would extend term limits for legislators from 8 to 12 years, including lawmakers currently in office.  The provision would expand term limits for state senators by one term, and for state representatives by two terms. The other proposal does not include currently elected lawmakers in the extensions.  The committee also agreed that the proposal should not be placed on the ballot until 2016 or later. The recommendations will now be considered by the OCMC’s Coordinating Committee.



See a video of the Commission’s meeting

  • State Treasurer Mandel Proposes to Expand Online Checkbook: Ohio’s State Treasurer Josh Mandel announced last week that his office will expand the website to include local jurisdictions, such as school districts, cities, townships, counties, libraries, by July 2015.  The website, which was launched in December 2014, currently provides information about state expenditures by agency and expense type.  The Treasurer’s office expects to work with OpenGov. to facilitate placing data about local government spending on the website.  Leaders representing school districts, municipal governments, townships, and state auditors attended a press conference on April 7, 2015 to announce their support of the new initiative.


  • Schools/Districts Selected to Participate in Alternative Assessments:  The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) announced on April 6, 2015 the 15 school districts and schools selected to participate in the Innovative Learning Pilot program to develop alternatives to Ohio’s state standardized tests. The program was one of the provisions of 130-HB487, which was approved in 2014.

According to an ODE press release, “The Innovative Learning Pilot will allow the schools to develop alternative tests for students to match their specific educational programs. Results of the trial could help shape state testing policies that affect schools statewide.”

The districts and schools are expected to begin piloting the alternative tests for the 2016-2017 school year. The following schools/districts have been accepted to participate:

STEM Schools

Bio-Med Science Academy

Dayton Regional STEM School

STEM Academy, Reynoldsburg

Global Impact STEM Academy

Great Oaks Career Center

Hughes STEM High School

Marysville Early College High School

Metro Early College High School

Innovation Lab Network Schools

Finneytown Local Schools

Kirtland Local Schools

Maple Heights City School

Orange City Schools

Perry Local Schools (Perry, Ohio)

Springfield City Schools

Yellow Springs Schools


2)  National News

  • Spending Gap Between High and Low Wealth Districts Increases:  Jill Barshay writes for the Hechinger Report about the growing gap in spending between the richest and poorest school districts in the country.

According to the report, “The richest 25 percent of school districts receive 15.6 percent more funds from state and local governments per student than the poorest 25 percent of school districts, the federal Department of Education pointed out last month (March, 2015). That’s a national funding gap of $1,500 per student, on average, according to the most recent data from 2011-12.  The gap has grown 44 percent since 2001-02, when a student in a rich district had only a 10.8 percent resource advantage over a student in a poor district.”

The percent difference in per pupil spending between high and low poverty school districts (by poverty quartile) in Ohio was -6.0 percent between 2001-02 and 2011-12.  In 2001-02 the percent difference was 4.7 percent, meaning that high poverty school districts spent more per pupil ($7,776) than low poverty school districts ($7,410).  But by 2011-12 the percent difference had changed to -1.3 percent.  Low poverty school districts were spending on average $9,800 per pupil and high poverty school districts were spending $9,673 per pupil.

See “The gap between rich and poor schools grew 44 percent over a decade” by Jill Barshay, Hechinger Report, April 6, 2015 at

See “School district current expenditures per pupil with and without adjustments for federal revenues by poverty and race/ethnicity characteristics”, National Center for Education Statistics Table A-1 at

  • Survey Released About CCSS: The Leadership Conference Education Fund announced on April 7, 2015 the results of a national survey about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and attitudes about public education.

The survey of 1,375 adults found that 44 percent know “a lot” or “some” while 24 percent said they have never heard of the Common Core State Standards.  The lack of knowledge about the Common Core was 37 percent among African Americans and 33 percent among Hispanic Americans.

The survey also found  “…strong support for the concept underlying the Common Core State Standards, especially among African Americans and Hispanics.”  Seventy-two percent believe “all states should have the same standards at each grade level in math and English so students have to meet the same expectations no matter where they live.”

However, respondents did not necessarily equate “the same standards” with CCSS.  About 47 percent reported somewhat or strong support; 34 percent expressed somewhat or strong opposition; and, 19 percent had no opinion about the CCSS.

The survey also found the following:

  • 97 percent of Americans believe students need to be able to think critically and apply skills in the real world to be successful after high school.
  • 92 percent believe schools must rise to meet the expectations of colleges and employers.
  • 71 percent believe expectations in U.S. schools are too low.
  • 92 percent believe “where a family lives, how much money they make, or their race or ethnicity should not determine the quality of the education that a child receives.”
  • 85 percent believe that the country needs “consistent standards to help ensure higher expectations for students.”
  • 47 percent believe U.S. schools do a good job of providing a well-rounded education to every student.
  • 47 percent believe that the federal government should not have a role in education.

-50 percent somewhat or strongly agree that there’s too much testing in our schools.

See “Report of Survey on Educational Standards” by the Leadership Conference Education Fund, April 7, 2015  at

  • Report Identifies Early Learning Unmet Needs: The U.S. Department of Education released on April 7, 2015 a new report about the number of children who do not have access to high quality early learning programs across the United States.  According to the report, efforts to invest in early learning programs by states and the federal government were falling short while only 41 percent of four-year-olds (1.6 million children) in 2012-13 were enrolled in publicly funded preschool programs.  In Ohio about 19 percent of four-year-olds were enrolled in either a state funded preschool program, a special education preschool program, or Head Start during 2012-13.

The report recommends that Congress include in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) support for early childhood education programs.  The newest Senate version of ESEA clarifies that states and school districts can use Title I funds to support early childhood education, but does not include new funds for these programs.

See “A Matter of Equity:  Preschool in America”, U.S. Department of Education, April 2015 at

3)  Senate Committee to Consider ESEA Reauthorization: After several weeks of bipartisan negotiations, the U.S. Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will consider on April 14, 2015 a Senate proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as the “No Child Left Behind Act.

The Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 was introduced last week by U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), chair of the HELP Committee, and Ranking Member Senator Patty Murray (D-WA).

According to the press release on April 7, 2015, “The senators’ bill would fix the problems with “No Child Left Behind,” while keeping successful provisions, such as the reporting requirement of disaggregated data on student achievement. The bill would end states’ need for waivers from the law.”

The “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” was due for reauthorization in 2007, but the House and Senate were unable to reach an agreement, although the U.S. House has approved several versions of ESEA over the past years.  In February 2015 the U.S. House was expected to vote on its latest version of ESEA entitled the Student Success Act, but the vote was delayed due a controversy about its testing provisions.

The new Senate version maintains some of the provisions in current law championed by civil rights advocates, including testing in grades 3-8 in math and English language arts, disaggregation of data for subgroups of students, maintaining high expectations for all students to achieve, maintenance of effort, and supplement not supplant.

But the bill also limits the federal role in primary and secondary education by giving more authority to schools and districts about designing accountability systems and improving low performing schools, and allowing states to adopt their own academic content standards without interference from the federal government.

In addition, the bill restores language that was removed in previous drafts defining “core academic subjects.”  The bill even includes music, in addition to the arts, as a core subject.  In Title IX General Provisions under “Definitions”  the bill states,  ‘‘(11) CORE ACADEMIC SUBJECTS.—The term ‘core academic subjects’ means English, reading or language arts, writing, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, geography, computer science, music, and physical education, and any other subject as determined by the State or local educational agency.’’

Another controversial provision in previous drafts called “Title I portability” is not included in The Every Child Achieves Act of 2015.  This provision would have allowed students to take federal dollars with them if they moved to another school or district.  Civil rights advocates argued that “portability” would undermine the purpose of Title I to serve disadvantaged students, because federal dollars could follow students to wealthy school districts, and drain funding from poorer school districts.

The following summary of The Every Child Achieve Act of 2015 is based on an analysis of the 600 plus page bill provided by the HELP Committee:

Title I:   Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged.

  • Maintains grade level testing:   The bill still requires states to administer tests in math and English language arts in grades 3-8 and once in high school, and administer tests in science at grade bands, but, “States will be given additional flexibility to pilot innovative assessment systems in school districts across the state.”
  • Allows states to develop accountability systems: Restores to states “…the responsibility for determining how to use federally required tests for accountability purposes. States must include these tests in their accountability systems, but will be able to determine the weight of those tests in their systems.”

-State accountability systems must still meet federal parameters “including ensuring all students and subgroups of students are included in the accountability system, disaggregating student achievement data, and establishing challenging academic standards for all students. The federal government is prohibited from determining or approving state standards.”

-“States will also be required to include graduation rates, one measure of postsecondary education or workforce readiness, and English proficiency for English learners.”

-“States will also be permitted to include other measures of student and school performance in their accountability systems in order to provide teachers, parents, and other stakeholders with a more accurate determination of school performance.”

  • Empowers states to improve low-performing schools: Prohibits the federal government from mandating, prescribing, or defining the criteria for states to follow to improve low performing schools.  The bill provides federal grants to states and school districts to design evidence-based interventions for low performing schools.

-“The bill does require that states monitor interventions implemented by school districts and take steps to further assist school districts if interventions are not effective.”

  • Maintains the one-percent cap on students with the most significant cognitive disabilities tested on the alternative academic achievement standards.
  • Improves the peer review process:  Requires the Secretary of Education to approve State plans within 90 days.  Allows the Secretary to withhold approval “based on substantial evidence,” but requires that the Secretary conduct a peer review which shall include a review team “…comprised of a variety of experts and practitioners with school-level and classroom experience. If a State plan receives disapproval, the bill maintains the State’s right to an opportunity for a hearing and to resubmit a plan for review.”
  • Maintains annual reporting of disaggregated data of groups of children, including low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, and English learners.
  • Affirms that states decide what academic standards they will adopt, without interference from Washington.

Title II:  Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers, Principals, and other School Leaders 

  • Provides resources to states and school districts to support teachers, principals, and other educators, including high quality induction programs for new teachers, ongoing professional development opportunities for teachers, and programs to recruit new educators to the profession.
  • Allows, but does not require, states to develop and implement teacher evaluation systems; eliminates the federal definition of a highly qualified teacher; and provides states with the opportunity to define this term.

Title III:  Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students

  • Provides resources to states and school districts to establish, implement, and sustain support for English language learners.

-“The bill requires states to measure school districts’ progress in these areas, and provide assistance and support to those in which language instruction educational programs are not effective. The bill also provides incentives to states and school districts to implement policies and practices that will lead to significant improvements in the instruction of English learners, including effective professional development for teachers and parent and community engagement practices.”

Title IV:  Safe and Healthy Students

  • Requires community-based needs assessments to better target funding and affirms state responsibility for supporting the coordination and implementation of high- quality programs and initiatives “…so that school districts can better meet the needs of their students and foster a positive school climate.”

Title V:  Empowering Parents and Expanding Opportunity through Innovation

  • Creates one Charter Schools Program consisting of three grant competitions for High Quality Charter Schools, Facilities Financing Assistance, and Replication and expansion.

-“The bill also provides incentives for states to adopt stronger charter school authorizing practices, increases charter school transparency and improves community engagement in the implementation and operation of each charter school receiving funds to ensure charter school success.”

  • Continues support for Magnet Schools.

Title VI : Flexibility and Accountability

  • Provides more flexible use of federal funding for rural schools.
  • Maintains the authorization of the Small, Rural School Achievement Program (SRSA) and the Rural and Low- Income School (RLIS) program and allows for dual eligible districts.

Title VII: Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education

  • Provides formula grants and competitive grants to support local development of programs for American Indian and Alaska Native students.

Title VIII:  Impact Aid

  • Includes language included in The National Defense Authorization Act that replaces the complicated, outdated Impact Aid formula with a simple, objective calculation for program eligibility.

Title IX:  General Provisions

  • Defines core academic subjects and includes arts and music in the definition.
  • Maintains important fiscal protections of federal dollars, but provides additional flexibility for states and school districts to meet maintenance of effort requirements, which help ensure that federal dollars supplement state and local education dollars.

-“Prohibits federal government from imposing additional requirements on states seeking waivers– This bill prohibits the Secretary from mandating additional requirements for states or school districts seeking waivers from federal law. The bill also limits the Secretary’s authority to disapprove a waiver request.”

Title X:  Homeless

  • Ensures homeless students have access to critical supports to improve school stability and ensures that school district liaisons have the necessary time and training to fulfill their responsibilities, increases support for unaccompanied youths, and improves provisions designed to increase school stability for homeless students.

-“The bill also ensures that homeless youth have access to all services provided by the state and school districts, including charter and magnet schools, summer school, career and technical education, advanced placement courses, and online learning opportunities.”

Early Childhood Education

  • Clarifies that states, school districts, and schools can spend ESEA dollars to improve early childhood education programs. These provisions apply to various titles including Title I, Title II (supports for teachers and school leaders) and Title III (programs serving English learners).


4)  State Board of Education to Meet:  The State Board of Education had announced last week that it would be meeting on Sunday, April 12, 13, and 14, 2015, but a new schedule has been posted, and the Board will begin its meeting on Monday, April 13, 2015 at 8:30 AM.  Two committees will meet at that time, the Achievement and Graduation Requirements Committee and the Capacity Committee.

Public participation on agenda and non-agenda items will follow approximately at 10:15 AM.  The Board will consider a resolution this month to rescind current rules and adopt new Operating Standards for Ohio School Districts and Elementary and Secondary Schools, Rules 3301-35-01 through 10.  The Board anticipates testimony from stakeholders who oppose changes in Rule 3301-35-05 Faculty and staff focus, regarding the “5 of 8 Rule”.

The Board will convene its business meeting in the afternoon, and, following an executive session, will take action on the Report and Recommendations of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.  (See items listed in the report below.)

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, the Urban & Rural Renewal Committee and the Accountability Committee will meet at 8:30 AM.  The Board will reconvene at around 10:00 AM to receive the report of the Superintendent, and presentations on College Credit Plus, Ohio’s Teacher Evaluation System, and Early Childhood Education.

The Board will take action on the following resolutions this month:

#2 Approve a Resolution of Intent to Amend Rules 3301-3-01, 3301-3-06, and 3301-3-07 of the Ohio Administrative Code Regarding Information Technology Centers.

#3. Approve a Resolution of Intent to Rescind Rules 3301-29-01 of the Ohio Administrative Code Entitled Community School Education Management Information System Reporting.

#4. Approve a Resolution of Intent to Adopt Rules 3301-56-02 of the Ohio Administrative Code Entitled Reading Achievement Improvement Plans.

#5. Approve a Resolution of Intent to consider confirmation of the Woodridge Local School District’s determination of impractical transportation of certain students attending Lower Lawrence School, Broadview Heights, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

#17. Approve a Resolution to Rescind and Adopt Rules 3301-35-01 to 3301-35-10 of the Ohio Administrative Code and to Rescind Rules 3301-35-11 to 3301-35-14 of the Ohio Administrative Code Regarding the Operating Standards for Ohio School Districts and Elementary and Secondary Schools.

#18. Approve a Resolution to Amend Rules 3301-42-01 of the Ohio Administrative Code Entitled Criteria for Enrolling Eligible Adults in Public Secondary Education Programs.

#19. Approve a Resolution to Amend Rules 3301-91-02 and 3301-91-03 and to Rescind Rule 3301-91-05 of the Ohio Administrative Code Regarding Standards for School Lunch and Breakfast Programs.

#20. Approve a Resolution to Amend Rule 3301-102-10 of the Ohio Administrative Code Entitled Dropout Prevention and Recovery Academic Performance Rating and Report Card System.

#21. Approve a Resolution Confirming the Finding of the State Board of Education That Portage County Education service Center is Non-compliant with its Community School Sponsorship Obligations.

#22. Approve a Resolution to Adopt Performance Indicators.

#23. Approve a Resolution to Adopt Ohio Standards for Profession Development.

5)  Studies Confirm Effectiveness of Board Certified Teachers:  Stephen Sawchuk reports for Education Week about two studies that show that “…teachers who earn national board certification are more effective than other teachers at the high school and elementary levels” and students who are taught by board-certified teachers have higher test scores.

He cites two studies, one published in April 15, 2014 entitled From Large Urban to Small Rural Schools: An Empirical Study of National Board Certification and Teaching Effectiveness Final Report, and the other published in February 11, 2015 entitled National Board Certification and Teacher Effectiveness:  Evidence from Washington, by James Cowan and Dan Goldhaber, Center for Education Data and Research, University of Washington Bothell.

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), Ronald Thorpe president, runs the certification program in 25 subject areas, including visual art and music.  The Board was founded in 1987, and about 110,000 teachers have been designated National Board Certified Teachers.

According to the article, the 2014 study is based on an analysis of scores of secondary students between 2000 and 2012 from Chicago and Kentucky, including scores on an ACT suite of assessments. “In all, the study found that board certification served as an effective “signal” of teacher quality, with students taught by those teachers doing better than students not taught by them, controlling for a variety of background characteristics.”

The 2015 study examined the test scores of elementary and middle school students and found that the effects of “holding the certificate were fairly small, across the two studies, but they were statistically significant.”

The article also notes that, “Neither study found definitive evidence that going through the board-certification process itself improved teachers’ skills, meaning that good teachers may just be more likely to choose to pursue certification. And while data from NBPTS suggest board-certified teachers are taking leadership roles in schools, most of those transitions seem to be the result of informal rather than strategic decisions.”

The 2015 report also found that there still are fewer board-certified teachers in low-income schools, a challenge that researchers are trying to address by providing incentives for teachers in high poverty schools who become board certified.

See “Board-Certified Teachers More Effective, New Studies Affirm: Policy implications of research weighed”

by Stephen Sawchuk, Education Week, April 1, 2015 at

See “From Large Urban to Small Rural Schools: An Empirical Study of National Board Certification and Teaching Effectiveness Final Report” by Linda Cavalluzzo, Ph.D. Principal Investigator CNA;

Lisa Barrow, Ph.D. Co-Principal Investigator Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago; Stephen Henderson, Ed.D. Co-Principal Investigator Briarwood Enterprises, LLC with Christine Mokher, Ph.D. and Thomas Geraghty, Ph.D. CNA; and Lauren Sartain University of Chicago, April 2014 at

See “National Board Certification and Teacher Effectiveness:  Evidence from Washington” by James Cowan and Dan Goldhaber, Center for Education Data and Research, University of Washington Bothell. February 11, 2015 at

6)  Student Data Not So Private:  The National Education Policy Center released on April 9, 2015 its 17th Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialization Trends – 2013-14.  This year the report reviewed policies to protect students and their families from third party vendors who can profit from the information collected at school about students, even anonymized data.

According to the report, as students use the Internet for school work or pleasure their activities are constantly tracked and recorded by education technology companies for future use.  The types of data recorded include information about the location of the student, preferences, academic achievement, and personal profiles, if the student takes a survey or standardized test.

By tracking student behavior vendors can target marketing strategies based on the likes and dislikes of students.

There is also a concern that the information collected about students couldl be used by colleges, employers, medical insurance providers, and future decision-makers “to make consequential decisions about them.”

According to the report, a 2013 study by the Center on Law and Information Policy found that 95 percent of districts rely on technology service providers to manage their data, but fewer than 25 percent have agreements with the service providers that restrict the sale or marketing of student information, or the amount of time that vendors can hold student data.  For example, an educational agency must specify in the contract with a technology service provider that the student and educational agency retain ownership of “online pupil generated content.”

Data security breaches are also a concern, because schools might have weak security software that enables unauthorized users to access private information about students, such as social security numbers, addresses, grades, heath information, and information about the family.

According to the article, because some data collected about students are not part of the “educational record” it might not be protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).  The data could be used “…to target marketing to children and their families, or to build profiles on them that would be of interest to such potential purchasers as colleges, universities and businesses that seek to market products to students, as well as to potential employers or military recruiters.”

The report also found that 29 states have approved laws protecting student privacy between 2011 – 2014, but most address data collected and saved as part of students’ individual education record.  Aside from California, Colorado, and to some extent Rhode Island, few states regulate student generated content, social media services, Internet sites, online services, online applications, and mobile applications.  And, only eight states, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New York, Rhode island, and Wyoming, explicitly prohibit the use of data for commercial purposes.

The report warns:

“Although a number of bills address student data privacy issues, legislatures have rarely addressed student data that are not part of official educational records. California and Colorado are the only states whose laws cover data that may be collected by companies providing education technology or websites and applications. Meanwhile, schools continue to send children to the Internet to conduct research and to work and play on education- related websites and mobile applications. By doing so, they in effect send them off unsupervised to sail the digital marketing seas—where they are susceptible to and targeted for marketing.”

The report makes the following recommendations:

-The Federal Trade Commission should extend the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) protections to age 14, and strengthen the protections offered to adolescents ages 15-18.

-FERPA should be strengthened to give the Education Department the power to sue on the behalf of parents and give local education agencies (LEAs) authority to support to parents.

-Parents should have the opportunity to correct errors in the data collected about their children, or to opt out of data collection entirely.

-Vendors should be required to specify in advance the purpose for collecting data, and should be required to use the data for the restricted purpose, and then destroy the data.

-Legislators and district leaders should follow guidelines of the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Student Privacy Bill of Rights when developing statutory language or policies to protect student privacy.

-Policy makers should develop policies that encompass not only the privacy of student educational records, but also the wide variety of student data (including anonymized data that may now be collected and shared). These policies should prohibit the potential commercial use of any data collected.

-The burden of protecting student data should be placed not only on schools and districts, but also on any private vendors with access to student data. “This would align the interests of all parties, public and private, in protecting student privacy.”

In an analysis of Ohio laws to protect student privacy, the report notes that HB153 approved in 2011, HB59 approved in 2013, and HB487 approved in 2014 do the following to protect student data:

-Require written parental request for data to be released, including educational record data with personally identifying information

-Require the assignment of a data verification code to each student

-Prohibit the State Board of Education and the ODE from having access to information that would enable any data verification code to be matched to personally identifiable student data

-Require de-identification of personally identifying information

-Require implementation of data security procedures

-Add language to protect the confidentiality of student data

-Bar the collection of certain data in the course of school testing

But, the Ohio laws fail to do the following:

-Restrict the use of data collection for advertising and marketing purposes

-Give parents the right to see data collected about their child

-Give parents the right to challenge and correct data

-Give parents the right to opt out of data collection

-Require the data’s intended use to be specified in advance

-Require data to be destroyed following intended use

-Provide no provisions regarding accountability for breaches in data security.

See “On the Block:  Student Data and Privacy in the Digital Age, The Seventeenth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialization Trends – 2013-14 by Alex Molnar and Faith Boninger, University of Colorado, National Education Policy Center, April 2015 at

7)  Bills Introduced

  • HB145 (McColley/Howse) STEM Partnership Program:  To establish the STEM Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program to provide high school students the opportunity to receive education in a targeted industry while simultaneously earning high school and college credit and to make an appropriation.
  • HB146 (Grossman/Brenner) Cursive Handwriting:  To require instruction in cursive handwriting.


  • AFA Webinar for Arts Education Advocates:  Americans for the Arts’ webinar program helps arts advocates develop knowledge and skills to support the arts in their communities.

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 3:00 PM EDT a webinar will be available about how to use Americans for the Arts’ e-books to make positive changes for arts education in communities.

The Arts Education Navigator, Getting Started e-book provides information about the value and purpose of arts education, and practical strategies and advise about how to work in communities to strengthen arts education.

The Arts Education Navigator, Facts and Figures e-book provides more information about studies supporting arts education as an component of a comprehensive education for every child, including statistics and data to support arts education advocacy.

The webinar will review these publications in depth, and explore ways to apply the content and strategies in real situations.

AFA webinars are free for AFA professional members and cost $35.00 per webinar for non-members.

The Arts Education Navigator Series is available at

Information about the webinar is available at

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 (,Ohio Art Education Association (, Ohio Educational Theatre Association (; OhioDance (, and the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education (


About OAAE

It is the mission of the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education to ensure that the arts are an integral part of the education of every Ohioan. We believe that: * All children in school must have quality arts education provided by licensed arts educators * All Ohioans have the right to expect quality arts education * All arts programs must have adequate resources * All arts and cultural organizations and artists have a critical role in arts education Learn more at
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: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s