Reading for 2/4/09

"Reforming Ohio's Education System for the 21st Century" prepared by the office of Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio

In this document, Governor Ted Strickland's educational reform package for the state of Ohio is presented to the public. This plan is broken up into six subpoints:

1.) 21st Century Learning Environment
2.) Expanded Learning Opportunities
3.) High Quality Educators
4.) Measure Ohio Schools Against the world
5.) School District Accountability
6.) Effective funding for a 21st Century System of Education.

Some of the major highlights of the plan under each section are then discussed. The first section basically discusses the curriculum offerings that the governor would like to see in the classrooms. The second section deals with expanding the school day and the offerings of the school, including social offerings, that would benefit both the children and the families of the children. Thirdly, it discusses a new "teacher training" ladder and ways in which quality of teachers will be assured. Fourthly, it discusses how testing and educational goals will be realigned to be more "practical" for children, focusing on problem solving skills and active community participation. Fifthly, the document looks at ways in which the state can more closely monitor school districts that are performing below average. This section also details a plan of how a school will be reorganized by the government for failing to meet standards. Finally, the document discusses how the school funding system will be addressed, specifically focusing on the way that the state, by full implementation of this plan, will be paying for 59% of a child's education.

I feel that I speak from a disadvantage on this article as I have not had a significant amount of experience dealing with educational policy in any of my courses. I have not, either, had any practical experience through being effected by policy or levies. I do hope, though, that I will learn more as educational policy is very important to today's teachers.

While I do feel that education reform is a good thing, teachers and districts must be constantly evaluating and re-evaluating how they are performing, I feel that there are both parts of this document that I agree with and parts that I disagree with. Firstly, I very much agree with the idea of project-based learning and learning that is conducted in a cross-content environment. Much of the participation in these areas seems to be active participation and more strongly lends itself to the student remembering what they covered in class. I also feel that, in general, this may help teachers specialize education for each student. Secondly, I also like the idea of the services offered to families through the establishment of the new positions designed to break down non-educational learning barriers. Although the language is vague, I am making the assumption that this is pointing towards offering services for students that are at the bottom of the Hierarchy of Needs so that their base needs are met and they can come to class on equal footing with other students and be ready to learn. I thing this will take a great amount of strain off of the teachers. I also like the office dealing with monitoring the latest research and distributing it to teachers. Finally, I am very much in favor of the government subsidizing the ACT for those who can't afford to take it as well as the revamping of the tax system.

I am not, however, in agreement with the way that the government is planning to assure the quality of the teachers in the classroom. One of the largest points of contention that I have with this is delaying tenure for 9+ years. This is at least a third of the entire career of the educator and I feel that it is far too long for a teacher to be nontenured. Further, while I do like the idea of a career ladder, I'm not sure that I agree with the advancement of a teacher through this ladder being tied, in part, to student performance. There are so many factors that contribute to student performance in the classroom that I feel it is a poor (and extremely unequal when suburban populations are compared to socio-economically depressed "inner city" populations) measure of a teacher's skill. Even with the creation of the position designed to break down "non-academic barriers" I don't feel that this would be a fair measurement. The other main point of contention that I have with the article is the language used to describe the power that the school boards are now given to dismiss teachers. "Good cause", I feel, is too vague of a term for this power.

In conclusion, I feel that this education plan has a lot of strong points and could be a very welcome reform. I do feel, though, that certain sections need to be re-examined. I would like, also, to read more in-depth in order to make a more informed assessment of this education package before developing more opinions on it.