Friday, January 09, 2015

Behind the Statistics on Campus Rape

Research is more nuanced than easy numbers imply

This from the Chronicle of Higher Education:

When journalists and politicians talk about campus rape—as they have frequently over the past several months—they tend to pluck numbers out of context. Studies done on one or two campuses are said to represent the country. Estimates become facts.

The reality is that measuring sexual violence remains a challenge. Survey participants are asked to disclose to researchers information they may not want to admit to themselves. Perpetrators may balk at acknowledging behavior they know to be criminal.

Behind Campus Rape Statistics, Research Questions Persist 1
Clothesline Project
What’s more, scholars in different fields clash over how to study the subject. Some fret about the emphasis on measuring crime, whereas colleges must face a broader spectrum of sexual misconduct.
How do we know what we know? And where do we need more research? Here’s a closer look at several assertions informing the conversation about campus rape.
• One in five women is sexually assaulted in college.

That figure opened a report from a White House task force on sexual assault and has since been widely quoted. But the number comes from a study that wasn’t designed to yield a national estimate.
The initial impetus for the research was narrower: measuring the prevalence of drug-facilitated sexual assault. To do that, the study’s lead author, Christopher P. Krebs, had to start broadly, identifying victims and the nature of their assaults.

Mr. Krebs, a senior research social scientist at RTI International, a nonprofit research group, surveyed 5,446 undergraduate women at two large public universities.

Among the findings: 19.8 percent of women, says Mr. Krebs, "will experience a completed sexual assault while they’re in college." That number (the source of the "one in five" figure) includes a range of behaviors, from groping to intercourse.

The figure has faced criticism. Some fault its inclusion of lesser offenses. Mr. Krebs replies by offering a number that omits them: One in seven female undergraduates will be a rape victim in college, meaning "penetration that was unwanted and that they did not consent to."

Others say the small study can’t be the basis for a national rate. As one critic told the Tampa Bay Times, "This ‘one in five’ statistic shouldn’t just be taken with a grain of salt, but the entire shaker."
Such talk is "hyperbole," argues Mary P. Koss, a veteran sexual-­assault researcher and professor of public health at the University of Arizona. Mr. Krebs’s findings are "not out of line with what is reported by other studies," she says. "To take a body of research where there is some range of confidence around the estimates," she says, "and to imply that it is basically worthless information that can’t be trusted—it makes good controversy, but it’s not a scientifically rational thing to say."

• Most rapes are committed by serial predators.

So writes David Lisak, a clinical psychologist whose work has become another touchstone in the dialogue about campus rape. Mr. Lisak seeks to correct the conventional view of college rapists: that they are essentially decent men who would never commit such acts were it not for boozing and poor communication.

In a study published in 2002, Mr. Lisak surveyed 1,882 men at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. Roughly 6 percent acknowledged committing acts that met the definition of rape. But what stunned Mr. Lisak was the nature of those offenders: Of the 120 rapists, 76 of them, or 63 percent, reported committing more than one rape. Those serial predators averaged six rapes each.

That has serious potential implications for colleges. Mr. Lisak, a retired associate professor of psychology at UMass-Boston, argues that each reported sexual assault should generate an investigation of both the incident and the alleged attacker, to see whether evidence exists that he committed other offenses.

Mr. Lisak did his research at a commuter campus that caters to working students who skew older than those at a traditional residential college. In part because of that, a Slate analysis concluded his study "cannot fairly be said to describe the behavior of the majority of young men who find themselves accused."

But drawing on his reading of related research on rape perpetrators, inside and outside academe, Mr. Lisak says that he strongly suspects his findings are generalizable. To what extent, he does not know.

• Fraternity men are three times as likely as other male students to rape.

That statistic appeared in Rolling Stone’s notorious article about an alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house. One source for the assertion is work by John D. Foubert, a rape-prevention advocate and professor of higher education and student affairs at Oklahoma State University.

For a study published in 2007, Mr. Foubert surveyed 565 first-year men at a public university in the Southeast. His main goal was to test whether a rape-prevention program changed students’ behavior over an academic year.

Mr. Foubert found that 8 percent of men who joined fraternities committed some act of sexual assault during the year, compared with 2.5 percent of nonfraternity members. (On average, the men who did and did not join fraternities had committed the same number of sexual assaults before they arrived at college.)

"Something about the fraternity experience," Mr. Foubert concludes, "must be leading to this increase in sexual violence."

Such studies might imply one solution to the problem: Shut down frats. Ms. Koss cautions that people too quickly seize on that as an "easy answer." Yes, fraternity men report higher rape rates. But "men are multifaceted," she says.

"If you do an analysis," she says, "where you say, OK, now after we’ve taken account for how much they drink, and after we’ve taken account of what kind of peer group they’re in, and the amount of peer support they get for impersonal sex and objectifying women and pursuing sex at all costs—now, does fraternity membership predict the rape rate? No. The biggest predictors of the rape rate are peer support and alcohol use."

• College women are at greater risk of sexual assault than are their non-college-bound peers.

That’s presented as a fact on the website of Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, who in July introduced a bill to combat campus sexual assaults.

But a recent study challenged the idea, reporting that college women are less likely than nonstudents to be attacked. Among women 18 to 24, the rate of rape and other sexual assault was 1.2 times higher for nonstudents than for students, according to that federal study.

What explains the discrepancy? The senator’s source is a 2005 report by the National Institute of Justice. The Chronicle asked one of that report’s authors, Bonnie S. Fisher, to describe the specific data used to assert that students face more risk. Ms. Fisher, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati, could not immediately do so.

"That was probably our current state of knowledge or belief at that time," given the research available, Ms. Fisher says. She adds, "You’re really missing the bigger issue, which is that individuals age 18 to 24" have "among the highest rate of rape and sexual assault."

Scholars point to several aspects of the rape problem on campuses that need more research. The perpetrators, for one thing, says Mr. Krebs, of RTI International. Researchers are good at surveying victims. But they know too little, he says, about the men who carry out sexual assaults: who the attackers are, how they think, and how to change their behavior.

Another area for more research: campus climate. Is sexual harassment common at certain colleges? Are attitudes toward women more negative? The goal is to measure whether such attitudes and behaviors translate into more sexual assault, says Mr. Krebs, who plans to study campus climate as part of a large survey he is developing with partners including the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the White House. Knowing that information could help colleges try to change students’ behavior.

Still, Ms. Koss worries about the influence of crime-oriented approaches. She cites a controversial survey planned by the Association of American Universities.

"Sexual assault is a multidisciplinary field," Ms. Koss says. "And yet the measurement of it seems to be, in this initiative, concentrated in the hands of criminologists. Which means that the health perspective and the psychological perspective is not being heard."

She adds, "In the literature within other disciplines, we look at sexual victimization as being a continuum that starts with lower-severity things"—catcalls and surreptitious videotaping, for example—"and at the very extreme end is rape."

(Ms. Fisher, who is working on the AAU survey, says the project strives for a "balanced" approach that draws on multiple disciplines.)

Another concern is that the public focus on sexual assault may make it harder to collect data.
That’s because the ability to study perpetrators "is predicated on students’ really not understanding that we’re asking questions about rape," Mr. Lisak says. (Surveys avoid words like "rape"; students feel they are simply describing sexual experiences.) Given the publicity, Mr. Lisak fears many more will grasp that researchers are inquiring about rape—and refrain from answering honestly.

Montgomery County School Board suspends superintendent Josh Powell

This from H-L

The Montgomery County School Board in Mount Sterling suspended superintendent Joshua Powell effective Thursday, according to Powell's attorney, Wayne Young.

An attorney for the school board did not return telephone calls Thursday.

Young said in an email: "The board did suspend him; they offered no explanation as to the basis for the suspension. I am of the opinion that there is no authority under Kentucky law to suspend a local superintendent."

Young said the suspension was not warranted. 

This from Page One Kentucky:

Joshua Powell Has Finally Been Suspended

The new Montgomery County school board just suspended embattled superintendent Joshua Powell in an urgently called special session.


JOSHUA POWELL
He’s denied legal defense fees from insurance and his contract isn’t being renewed.

Donna Wilson is the only member who opposed the action.

There’s another special session scheduled for Monday.
Since being sworn in, the new board has been working with an attorney from the southeastern part of the state who specializes in cases like the one in Montgomery County. Looks like it just paid off.

The move comes on the heels of an 18-month investigation by Page One, years of scandal, multiple lawsuits and dozens of investigations by state and federal agencies. Powell has been chastised by the State Auditor of Public Accounts for illegally hiring his wife, condemned by the Office of Civil Rights for ongoing Title IX violations, investigated by the Office of Education Accountability on several occasions and repeatedly taken to task by the Education Professional Standards Board. And on Monday, Powell begins yet another EPSB trial. (Get ready — that will be crazy.)

He also faces multiple lawsuits filed by former employees with at least two additional suits set to be filed soon.

Powell’s suspension means he’s no longer permitted to enter the central office and may not handle school accounts or activities until the board decides he can return to work. Which is not likely to happen. They’ll end up paying him for the duration of his contract, since the EPSB outcome won’t be reached until June/July. Or they’ll conduct their own investigation and find reason to fire him with cause.

Powell’s team has been coming unglued the past week. Intimidating (not allegedly) witnesses set to testify, threatening this very website, allowing his legal team to interrupt classroom instruction to interview teachers. They’ve even been spotted outside the homes of people suing him in a black Toyota SUV. He’s also taken it upon himself to give his inner circle of co-conspirators promotions and pay raises in an attempt to offer payback. During Monday evening’s meeting, Powell had his entire legal team present in anticipation of being terminated.

Despite claims to the contrary, Powell is not likely to grace the halls of Montgomery County Schools again. And despite what his team have to say about Education Commissioner Terry Holliday intervening to stop the board? Sources tell us there are plans to take legal action against Holliday if he steps in.

Bonus: That indemnity clause in Powell’s contract?


CLICK TO ENLARGE
Text:
Indemnity: The Board agrees that to the extent insurance or similar coverage is afforded to the Board, the Board shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the Superintendent from all demands, claims, suits, actions, and legal proceedings brought against the Superintendent in his individual capacity or in his official capacity as agent and employee of the District provided same arose while the Superintendent was acting within the scope of his employment. [If in the good faith opinion of the Superintendent a conflict exists regarding the defense to such claim between the legal position of the Superintendent and the legal position of the Board and/or District, the Superintendent may engage counsel in which event the District shall indemnify the Superintendent for the cost of the legal.] – subject to insurance coverage.
Hearing from sources on the board that there are legal opinions suggesting that the clause won’t hold up in court. Potentially OAG 86-18 from March 19, 1986. We’ll publish those opinions at a later date.
There’s more where that came from.

And this:

Montgomery Co: Sadly, Your Story Isn’t Over Yet

Our investigation may have taken 18 months but during last evening’s Montgomery County Board of Education meeting, embattled superintendent Joshua Powell was finally suspended.


JOSHUA POWELL
As reported last night, Powell is suspended and he’s lost his free ride on the legal fees front. His contract is not being renewed. The board has brought on a new attorney. And there’s another special session taking place Monday evening — the same day his latest Education Professional Standards Board trial begins.

Donna Wilson was the only member to oppose these actions, so you can bet she’ll lose any re-election bid. Though, little birdies tell us she likely won’t run again.

Unfortunately, the nightmare for Montgomery County isn’t over. The process with EPSB will take until June or July. Though, the school board will be able to act long before then if it so chooses. But there are lingering cases with the Office of Civil Rights over Title IX violations, three current lawsuits are pending against him and two more set to be filed any day now. When depositions in those cases begin, all hell will break loose.

Once an interim superintendent is named, investigations will begin and those efforts will take several months. Powell likely will sue the board. He’ll lose. The district will clean house. Everyone will move on.

So buckle in for a long ride. Just know that you’re on the last leg of the trip.
Here’s the video you’re all waiting to see:



Dr. Kelly Johnson should be commended for taking the initiative. It is abundantly clear that Johnson, Bill Morgan, Alice Anderson and (most of the time recently) Sharon Smith-Breiner have listened to their constituents and kept their promises. It’s rare for public servants in such a capacity to stand up and do what’s right despite the serious personal risk involved. They’ve shown leadership and deserve your thanks.
Montgomery County is breathing a small and brief sigh of relief.

44 Redistricting scenarios, but Stein sees progress

This from the Herald-Leader:
The Fayette County Public Schools redistricting committee on Thursday night rejected a possible scenario for redrawing attendance boundaries that would have moved more than 7,600 students.
The scenario, which some committee members thought was too disruptive and would have brought too many changes — in particular to Cassidy and Glendover elementary schools — was one of 44 options discussed Thursday. The committee is working to redraw attendance boundaries in preparation for the openings of two new elementary schools in fall 2016 and a new high school in fall 2017.

"I think all of us determined that the scenarios we walked in with were unworkable for a whole lot of reasons," committee chairman Alan Stein said. "They split up too many neighborhoods and moved too many kids from where they currently are.

"You might move a whole neighborhood, and that's much less impactful than moving three different segments of a neighborhood into three different schools. We don't want to do that."

Stein said it was unclear at this point how many of the district's more than 41,000 students would be moved. But the numbers discussed have totaled 5,000 to 7,000. At least 2,800 students will move into the new schools by 2017, he said.

Stein said a few committee members are "advocating that we hardly do anything. Just leave it alone ... populate the new schools and be done with it."

The committee has made no decisions to give to the school board for approval and won't until mid-March to April 1, Stein said. District officials hope to have a community meeting about redistricting, at which families may offer opinions, in late January.

As in past meetings, the committee tried Thursday to reach balanced capacity enrollment at several elementary schools.

Stein said that at the next meeting, at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday at Central Office, committee members were expected to discuss other guiding principles such as socioeconomic balance. The committee will have an aggressive schedule in January and February, meeting twice next week alone.

Among the discussions Thursday was whether families in the Palomar neighborhood would be moved from Rosa Parks to Stonewall elementary, but no decisions was made.

Stein said he thought the committee made a lot of progress Thursday in working with data about students and schools.

"What we have figured out is how to analyze all the data and be more focused on making it all fit together," he said.

Before Thursday's meeting, Emily Venters Coomes, who lives in the Andover neighborhood, was concerned that the neighborhood would be split between Athens-Chilesburg Elementary, often called ACE for short, and a new elementary school. But at the meeting, Coomes saw a new possible scenario.

"I was really happy with the map they put together for our area at the meeting tonight," she said. "It seems like the best of both worlds. It kept Andover together and it also included in the ACE district (the) Stuart Hall and Chilesburg" neighborhoods.

"This is the best map I've ever seen," she said.

Stuart Hall neighbors have been concerned that they are assigned to Breckinridge Elementary but live closer to Athens-Chilesburg.

"Out of every meeting I've been to, I think they made more progress tonight," said Vicky Walters, who lives in the Stuart Hall neighborhood. "I actually saw some logic being exercised. I saw some movement in a very positive direction."

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/01/08/3631536/fayette-schools-redistricting.html?sp=/99/164/142/#storylink=cpy

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Gene Wilhoit on the Common Core, Part 1

This from Marc Tucker at Top Performers:

Gene Wilhoit
Gene Wilhoit served as chief state school officer in Arkansas and in Kentucky before the Council of Chief State School Officers asked him to assume the leadership of their association.  Two decades earlier, Wilhoit had served as an active member of the board of an organization, the New Standards Project, that I had put together to develop new, internationally benchmarked student performance standards for the American states, along with a set of assessments set to those standards.  After he took the helm as Executive Director of the CCSSO, Wilhoit led the successful joint effort of the country's chief state school officers and its governors to create the Common Core State Standards.  In this multi-part interview, I talk with Wilhoit about why he thought it so important to create the standards and what he thinks will be needed to fully implement them.  
 
Marc Tucker:  Gene, you played the key role in the development of the Common Core, a remarkable achievement. Twenty years ago, our New Standards Project set out to achieve much the same goal. We did not reach the goal line, though.  How would you account for your success?

Gene Wilhoit: You were ahead of your time. The country wasn't ready for this idea politically and the states did not have the capacity to implement it.  But the idea you put on the table twenty years ago grabbed my attention and has been an issue for me ever since.  I realized that, historically, the chief state school officers had abdicated their responsibility.  The states had never really declared what we most wanted our students to learn.

I never lost my zeal for the idea.  I watched the attempts of the federal government under the first President Bush and President Clinton to do something about it, but they fell short.  As time went by, the governors and the business community pressed ever more strongly for some sort of standards that would be common across the states.

When I took over as the head of the CCSSO, I decided to make the development of these standards the keystone of my administration.  The states had to do it. Many people were concerned that if we did not do it, the federal government would.  And we did not want that to happen.  So the states took the lead.  In fact, we told top federal government officials at the time that this was a state agenda, and we didn't want them involved in any way.

There is, of course, an irony in this.  Even though we were very diligent about not involving the federal government in the development of the standards, and even though we warned the federal government against doing anything that might imply federal government pressure to adopt them, the federal government still, in the Race to the Top program, created very strong incentives for the states to adopt the Common Core, and that has turned out to be enough to turn the Common Core into a political football.

MT: Nonetheless, when the dust clears, it is very likely that there will be a large number of states that continue to embrace the Common Core by that name or some other.  The question I have is not whether states will formally embrace the Common Core, but whether it will fail because it was never really implemented.  The premise of the Common Core is that it will greatly raise expectations for kids, especially for those kids for whom standards have been low; that it will serve as a framework that can be used to develop a powerful curriculum as well as a framework for excellent instruction in the hands of capable teachers.  Are the states and other folks involved doing what is necessary to bring that vision to life?

GW: I'll begin on a positive note.  There is plenty of evidence that an overwhelming majority of teachers view these standards as superior to what they had before.  They want to use them in their classrooms.  That creates a foundation of goodwill where it most counts.  But if we don't support this enthusiasm, it will quickly turn to confusion, resentment and pushback.  I worry that we might fail to give professional educators what they need to implement the Common Core.  Their initial enthusiasm could easily disappear.

I've noticed a couple of things that trouble me.  It is not an easy task to translate standards into a curriculum.  You can't teach standards.  They are the objectives.  They need to be fleshed out in learning progressions to allow us to create specific curricular designs.  But in this country, there is a belief that the curriculum belongs to every local community and every school.  We have a lack of capacity to develop strong curriculum at that level and a reluctance to allow others to take this on.  Will we be able to translate standards into a strong curriculum design, which will be a basis for instruction and assessment?  I see many people ignoring this issue and going straight to tasks and assessment.  This is very troubling to me.

How do we resolve this?  In many states, curriculum decisions will be left to locals.  But we should be looking for highly capable people who could create first-rate model curricula, of the kind that the National Science Foundation supported with such success years ago.  We should be creating opportunities for teachers to work together in their schools in a more disciplined way to design and evaluate curriculum.  Networks of teachers should be set up to work on this, guided by professional organizations charged with providing the support that teachers will need to make sure that the curriculum they develop is developed to high quality standards.

Secondly, I worry about assessment.  This experiment by two consortia has produced, from what I can see, better assessments than what states have used before.  There is every reason to believe the first full-scale field administration of the tests will be successful.  At the same time I see a number of states pulling back because they want a cheap test, but you can't have high quality on the cheap.  Some states seem to think that they can produce high quality tests on their own, but I don't think any state has the capacity to do that.  And, with respect to the tests being produced by the two state consortia, I worry about the states' capacity to keep the two consortia going over the long haul.  We may need to explore new forms of public-private partnerships to sustain and continuously update these new tests.

Third, our professional development system isn't geared toward providing the kinds of support teachers need to implement the Common Core State Standards.

MT: The only thing you left out that is on my list is the quality of the teachers our teacher education programs are developing.

GW: Yes, I agree.  And I worry how long it is going to take to turn our teacher education programs around.  These institutions have very little capacity to do what has to be done to prepare first-rate teachers, and even less capacity to provide dynamic support to teachers once they enter the profession.  Right now, we are only playing around the edges of what needs to be done in teacher education.  We have not even begun to see the kinds of dramatic changes that other countries--the countries that are far ahead of us in student performance--have made in their teacher education institutions.

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

Taking the Helm

This from WKYT:
Fayette County students returned to class Monday after enjoying a lengthy break for the holidays.
Monday also was the first school day for interim superintendent Marlene Helm, who takes the reins from Tom Shelton.
Helm’s contract officially began Jan. 1, but the board allotted her 12 days in December, which she spent visiting schools and meeting with employees.

Helm, who was interim superintendent of Fayette County Public Schools about 10 years ago, sent an email to parents that said “the insights shared with me so far have been illuminating and I look forward to hearing and learning more from those I have yet to meet with.”

“Like a team adjusting its game plan at halftime, we will make course corrections to improve our performance in these and other areas,” she wrote.

Helm replaces Shelton, who resigned after a tumultuous year that includes a state audit that raised concerns about the district's finances and failed communication among district leaders.

Board members are in the process of finding a permanent leader of the district. Until then, Helm will be working to resolve some of those issues. Helm is not being considered as a permanent replacement. The earliest a new permanent superintendent could start would be July 1.

"We need to provide the auditor with monthly updates and we need to make some progress there," Helm said, adding that she expects to tackle the district’s challenges head-on.

The welcome letter she sent to parents is the type of gesture that Helm says is needed to establish open communication with school administrators, teachers, staff and parents of students.

"We've been entrusted to make sure their children are receiving a world-class education and in order to do that we've got to constantly be changing and change is hard," she said.
This from Dr. Helm:
Dear FCPS Families:

Welcome back from winter break!  While having time to spend with loved ones is wonderful, we truly do miss having our students on campus and it’s exciting to have them back.  Whether or not you have a formal “New Year’s Resolution,” returning to school after a break always feels like a chance for a new beginning and a fresh start, or what I like to call the “second half.”

It is an honor to have the opportunity to again be a part of the amazing Fayette County Public Schools’ team as your Acting Superintendent.  When I was an aspiring teacher at Kentucky State College, my ultimate dream was to teach and work in Fayette County, and the 21 years I spent in service here were the highlight of my professional career.

Although my contract officially began January 1, the board allotted me 12 days to work in December and I spent that time visiting schools and meeting with employees and other stakeholders.  The insights shared with me so far have been illuminating and I look forward to hearing and learning more from those I have yet to meet with.  Closing the achievement gap, increasing communication, ensuring equity, and improving culture and climate are the themes that have started to emerge for our focus and commitment in the second half.  Like a team adjusting its game plan at halftime, we will make course corrections to improve our performance in these and other areas.

The reason our school district exists is to provide students with a world class education.  Everything we do, from the board room to the classroom, the lunchroom to the bus stop, must support the success of each and every child in the Fayette County Public Schools.  You have my commitment that I will work with employees, families, students and community members to align and focus all of our efforts on that singular goal.

Thank you for being a part of the Fayette County Public Schools, for working in partnership with the staff at your child’s school, and for entrusting to us your child’s education.  We share your goal of seeing your child achieve great things, and together we can, and will, ensure their success.

Sincerely,
Marlene Helm, Acting Superintendent
Fayette County Public Schools

Monday, January 05, 2015

Board of Trustees to Address Accountability of University of Louisville

This from the Kentucky Health Policy Institute:
It has become clear that Board of Trustees of the University of Louisville is not always fully briefed about important matters. Most recently, it was reported, without denial or rebuttal by the University, that the administration withheld the non-public results of a recent external review of the University’s financial accounting system even when requested by board members. At least one Board member requested that he be permitted to resign in protest over the withholding of information and failure to allow meaningful Board discussion of important University issues. Following the controversy related to the recent departures of high-ranking University officials, I became one of many asking the UofL Board to step up to the plate. Apparently that was happening already!
The University has made public the agenda for [its December 18th] Board Executive Committee meeting. It contains extensive information related to the 2015 Grawemeyer Awards, and to the Endowment Match (Bucks for Brains) Program. Attached to the end of the 134 page agenda is a two-page Draft presented for discussion. It is otherwise unlabeled and undated. It is, however, a blockbuster of a document! I must assume from its content that board members themselves prepared it.

The document refers to the statutory powers of the UofL Board of Trustees specifically granted under KRS 164.830 including the following powers/responsibilities:
• Requirement of reports from the president, officers, faculty, and employees as it deems necessary and proper from time to time.
• Officers and officials shall be held accountable for the status of the institution’s progress.
• Suspension or removal of the president, officers, faculty, agents, or other personnel that it is authorized to appoint…
The memo is written in a supportive manner as a series of requests, but there is no question of an underlying frustration implying that the Board is being impeded from doing its job. As I read the “requests,” I am stunned that they would even have to be made at all. Some are general including:
• Allowing the board to decide who other than the President should be permitted to attend executive sessions of the board.
• A change in orientation of Board meetings from “ritual and ceremony” to the “business of the university, discussion and debate.”
• An annual outside review of board duties and fiduciary responsibility.
• Discussion of “university conflict of interest policy and full disclosure of all administration and board real and potential conflicts.”
• Informing board members of sensitive university issues well before they are reported publicly.
Some of the requests are specific highlighting areas of public controversy including:
• Review of medical school probation issues.
• Complete recent audit with full report of findings and remedies.
• Review authority with recommendations on the university board with governance power over the KentuckyOne Joint Operating agreement.
• Review and benchmark our current legal department staffing and structure.
• Full involvement by subcommittee of the trustees in CFO and general counsel recruiting / hiring process. [Did that not happen?]
• Establish goal to become Phi Beta Kappa eligible with timetable and
accountability.

It seems clear that at least some Board members feel they are provided with insufficient information about the workings of the University to exercise their fiduciary responsibility. I sense that some members feel that the University administration is intentionally working around them. I suspect that all the requests are well based in fact, but even if there are differences of opinion, it is imperative that the full Board take up this discussion. No board member should have to beg for tidbits of information! It is the Board that has ultimate legal responsibility for the University, not its Administration.

The matter is now on the table.  It is possible that the current University administration or long-term entrenched interests on the Board will want to sweep this business under the rug as so often seems to happen. This would be a fatal blow to the concept of University accountability to its community.

Nonetheless, I am hopeful to see this discussion begin. The community should demand it continues!

Peter Hasselbacher, MD
President, KHPI.
Emeritus Professor of Medicine, UofL
Dec 17, 2014

Lawmaker: Funding should match actual student counts



State Rep. Jim DeCesare, R-Bowling Green, said the legislature doesn’t determine how much will be spent on education. Then he described exactly how they determine how much will be spent on education. 

Simply put, the legislature determines how much state tax money is “available.” 
Jim DeCesare

Once the General Assembly reviews its priorities and determines how much money it wants to put into the state education budget, the only thing that remains is to divide it up by looking at enrollment projections and setting the per-pupil allocation. Granted, those projections need to be become more accurate.

Of course, DeCesare glosses over just how the General Assembly determines how much is available. But that is a collective decision for which the legislature is solely responsible, and it is inaccurate to suggest that the department of education determines how much will be spent. If that was true, and KDE set the amount based on what the schools need to reach state goals, the price tag would be much higher.

Setting the per-pupil allocation is simply the mechanism the legislature uses to initiate the calculations. But make no mistake. The legislature determines how much will be spent on the schools.

Tom Shelton is correct to suggest the process is arbitrary - or perhaps discretionary - on the part of the legislature.

DeCesare is correct, however, to suggest that the system would benefit from using “average daily membership” rather than “average daily attendance.”

Also, once Frankfort gets past calculating how to distribute funds to the schools, spending it is a lot like buying bread. Much more than the legislature, schools exist in the real world.

This from the Bowling Green Daily News:
When you go to the store for a loaf of bread, let’s say really good bread, you might spend $3. When you gas up your vehicle, you see the price on the pump and pay that.
That’s the real world.

Government doesn’t work that way.

When a local school district gets money from the state of Kentucky, the normal rules of actual cost are tossed out the window, according to local officials.

The funding formula established in 1990 is called Support Education Excellence in Kentucky, or SEEK.

Kentucky can’t afford total local education costs, even taking into account local tax resources vs. state resources, two local school finance directors agreed.

That’s not a bad thing.

That’s just how it is.

So the state does the next best thing, providing support through a series of calculations and distributions, taking into account that not every district has a lot of local tax resources to fund schools. The approach takes the money from the haves and distributes part of it to the have-nots, in an attempt to equalize funding across the board.

It also doesn’t base state support on how many kids actually sit at the desks daily, but a on calculated variation of that – SEEK. The funding equity approach stems from a lawsuit years ago that challenged how Kentucky funds public education.

“It always seems to me how education is funded in Kentucky is very arbitrary,” said Superintendent Tom Shelton of Fayette County Public Schools in a recent article on the Kentucky School Boards Association website. “Every two years, our General Assembly will make a determination in how much will be spent on education. It takes an arbitrary amount of money and tells you how much will be given to our districts.”

Shelton is also president of the Council for Better Education, a consortium of 168 Kentucky public school districts. The CBE recently released “Adequacy and Equity for Excellence in Kentucky,” the results of a yearlong study of how Kentucky funds K-12 schools.

State Rep. Jim DeCesare, R-Bowling Green, said the legislature doesn’t determine how much will be spent on education, but rather receives a number from Kentucky Department of Education on the number of students to be paid for, then weighs that number with the available state tax money that can come from the state general fund for SEEK.

DeCesare said lawmakers only set a per-pupil allocation. This school year it is $3,911 per student, though adjustments in the formula mean that’s not actually what the school district receives in state SEEK per-pupil funding. For example, in Warren County Public Schools, that $3,911 is lowered to $3,634, while in the Bowling Green Independent School District, it is increased to $4,404, according to figures provided by KDE.

Two times in the past four years, KDE has given the legislature a low number, and after the funding package was in place for two years, KDE has announced mid-year cutbacks to SEEK, DeCesare said.
“We’ve got to come up with a new way. We need to base the SEEK money on the kids that are actually enrolled in the school districts,” DeCesare said. “Every year, we come up short.”

Chris McIntyre, county district finance director, said the state should calculate SEEK on “average daily membership” rather than “average daily attendance,” a figure that is arrived at through a series of formulas that would leave a bookie scratching his head.

“Anytime you try to tinker with SEEK, people come unglued,” DeCesare said.

Here’s a couple of other examples about school finance in Kentucky.

When Warren County Public Schools provides instruction in English as a second language for one-tenth of its more than 14,000 student population, it pays about $2 million annually, McIntyre said. The state pays the county district $498,606, according to the 2014-15 figures from KDE.
When it comes to the cost of transporting students, the county district shells out about $7.8 million annually and the state gives the district about $4.7 million to pay for that, McIntyre said.

Bowling Green Independent spends about $300,000 annually providing ESL instruction; however, the state provides a much lower percentage of the funding, at $146,803, said Jeff Herron, city district treasurer.

When it comes to the city district transportation program, the city spends about $1.6 million and gets $968,730 from the state, Herron said.

“When you think about SEEK, it’s really not a funding formula; it’s an allocation formula,” Shelton said in the KSBA article.

SEEK was created in 1990 in response to a state public education reform movement tied to equalizing state funding across the state. The current funding approach has been under study and a new approach has been mapped out.

Last month, state officials began discussions surrounding CBE’s new study looking at how state resources might be applied differently. The $130,000 study was done by Picus, Odden & Associates, a school finance consulting firm.

This past legislative session, SEEK received nearly $4 billion. Under the new model proposed by the Picus, Odden & Associates study, Kentucky public funding support would have to grow, officials said in published reports. The new model could cost more than $9 billion annually.

More Hyperbole on Charter Schools

Marty Solomon is correct to be concerned that Kentucky might adopt a weak charter school law which would surely lead to all manner of financial abuses and other shenanigans - all for very little or no benefit. But the bulk of his overstated claims should be ignored. In states with strong accountability for charters, they have not proven to be cancer. Rather, charters are most often indistinguishable from other public schools.

I consider myself to be a very weak charter school supporter. But what I can't stand in some charter school supporters is their tendency toward hyperbolic claims of wonderful effects derived from charter schools. There is nothing magical about being a charter operation that improves the education of children. I can't abide their lies.

Similarly, I don't see any reason to accept the hyperbolic claims of those who oppose charters either. There is nothing toxic about a well-regulated charter school.

The issue is whether charter schools are regulated effectively. When they are not well-regulated, Solomon's concerns are valid. When they are well-regulated, his concerns are not. Blanket indictments are overkill.

Nationally, charter schools are funded at about 70% of their traditional public school counterparts with no provisions made for facilities. Where accountability and operational transparency are written into the law charters tend to operate like any other school. Some are good. Some are bad. Most are in between - just like all public schools. None of them provide magical solutions for educating children from poverty. Where charters thrive, there is a lot more going on in the school community to support the students - just like in the best traditional public high schools - just like in the best private schools - just like in the best parochial schools. Solomon's criticisms apply best when considering for-profit charter school operations in states with weak oversight - many of which are terribly fradulent and indeed...cancerous to the system.

By contrast, my son (a certified teacher) teaches AP Economics at a charter/magnet high school in Atlanta and I can't distinguish the school from any other high school in town. In fact,the school is considering dropping its charter, and returning to operation as a Fulton County school next year. No problem.

My hope is that Solomon will turn his attention to the specific language in proposed charter school bills for Kentucky. There I'm sure he will find specific concerns that he can accurately rail against without the overstatement - which does not help the conversation and which ought never come from professors.

Further, I believe there is a constitutional question regarding charter schools in Kentucky. As the court has made clear, the General Assembly has the duty to provide adequate schools throughout the state. And the General Assembly may not satisfy their obligation by transferring that responsibility to another entity, whether that be a local school board or a charter school authority. The legislature must remain in control. But that also means that the General Assembly could argue that it cannot allow persistently low-performing schools to exist and accordingly, justify taking that authority away from a local school board. 

This from Marty Solomon in the Herald-Leader:

Charter schools would be unwise investment for Ky.

Marty Solomon
Charter schools are a cancer on public education. Kentucky should continue to reject their creation.
This is because they suck scarce funds away from our public schools, thereby making quality public education more difficult. At the same time, the vast majority of charters fail to deliver on their hollow promise to provide a superior education.

Charter schools are essentially private schools, run by private operators, under private rules, with private teachers, operating with far less accountability than public schools, and are exempt from all state statutes and administrative regulations.

The state would have absolutely no control over them. Because they swipe public funds from public schools to operate, they misleadingly call themselves public schools to hide their private nature.
While they promise to save children from failing public schools, charter schools are notoriously incompetent.

The track record for charter schools is abysmal and shameful. But that is what you would expect since they can hire teachers without any teaching experience or training — not even one college course in education — and can hire administrators without even a high school education.

The nation's report card, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, is administered by the U.S. Department of Education every two years. It is given to children in every state to measure their academic ability.

On math and reading tests in grades 4, 8 and 12, over the last eight years, public schools outscored charter schools in every category every year.

And when comparing test scores between poor and middle-class children, charter schools again failed. They were out performed each year by public schools. So, the claim that they rescue kids from failing public schools is totally bogus.

In Ohio, in 2010, for example, while only 10 percent of charter school children scored proficient, 40 percent of public school kids were proficient. In 2012, while 12 percent of public schools were graded poorly as D or F, 64 percent of charter schools got those grades.

The largest study of charter schools ever performed was by Stanford University in 2013. It included 95 percent of all charter school children in the U.S. It found that while there are some good charter schools, 71 percent of them were either worse than or no better than public schools.

So don't let charter proponents fool you. Their scheme is to point out problems with public schools, with the tacit assumption that charter schools will solve those problems, but facts emphatically counter their exaggerations.

The proposed charter-school legislation for Kentucky is a sweetheart deal for charter-school operators. In addition, everyone working for a charter would automatically become eligible for health care and retirement and the Kentucky system is already billions in debt.

Further, it would create a commission of charter-school advocates to uniquely monitor and approve new charter schools while having the ability to pay themselves lush salaries. Ever hear about the fox and chickens?

While advocates claim that poor-performing charters would be shut down, an initial charter would be licensed for five years, then could be allowed probationary status after that.

So a corrupt charter school could operate for maybe eight years before being shuttered and, in the meantime, be given multiple millions in state money. Worse, failed schools could reopen with some different personnel or simply walk away with public school money.

Charter schools are also ripe for fraud and abuse. Even though they propose annual audits, such audits rarely catch fraud. It is almost always a newspaper/TV station that spills the beans. To see the extent of charter fraud and abuse, go to http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com to see over 800 cases of misuse of public funds.

Kentucky doesn't need to expose its public schools to cancer.

A much more balanced assessment of charter school issuers can be found in a new report from Jon Valant at the American Enterprise Institute, "Better data, better decisions: Informing school choosers to improve education markets." 

Unlike Solomon's opinion (rant), this work is grounded in solid scholarship and data from existing choice research and it makes useful suggestions regarding how choice might be more effectively implemented. Still, like far too many charter school reports, it makes unsubstantiated claims about the power of choice to reform schools and to improve educational outcomes within a mythical school "marketplace." Valant writes,

Today more than ever, school choice is a centerpiece of American school reform efforts. Policies enabling families to choose from an assortment of charter, private, magnet, and traditional public schools are plentiful in the United States, with advocates describing these policies as a pathway to—and sometimes even a panacea for—school improvement.

A common argument for school choice policies appeals to the potential efficiencies that derive from market-based choices. The essential argument goes like this: Most parents profoundly love and know their own children, which provides parents with a strong desire and ability to find schools that are good for their children. In general, parents should choose high-quality schools that suit their children well so when schools are subjected to market pressures, schools must either offer sufficiently high-quality, desirable programs or succumb to low enrollment.
Unfortunately, getting school choice to work as intended is not quite so simple. There are many ways in which increasing school choice could fail to have its desired effects. For example, if a child cannot get to a school because of transportation hurdles, his or her family could have fewer choices. If a school lacks the autonomy to offer an educational program distinct from nearby schools, then families might have “choices” that are not all that different from one another.

Perhaps the greatest obstacles to fulfilling the promise of school choice, however, are the school choosers themselves. Choosing a school for a child is difficult. Questions about what schools should do and how we should assess performance can perplex education researchers, reformers, and policymakers. Yet the market-based logic for school choice relies on school choosers to answer these questions sensibly, even though many choosers have limited information about schools, limited training in conducting a school search, and limited resources to commit to the process. If few school choosers are up to this task, then school choice markets might not produce their hypothesized benefits.

Today, many governments and third-party organizations offer support to school-choosing families by providing the public with information about schools and helping families navigate their options. A recent proliferation of school performance data—sparked by test-based accountability and a broader societal embrace of data-driven decision making—has supplemented these efforts. School “report cards” and online parent reviews, for example, are cornerstones of today’s information-dissemination efforts, despite each being largely a 21st-century phenomenon.

These dissemination efforts are fraught with challenges. Creating high-quality, reasonable measures of school performance—which is not the focus of this paper—is certainly not the least of them. Yet even if we were somehow equipped with perfect metrics, the work of informing school choosers would be far from complete, because providing the public with information and ensuring that the public is truly informed are not one and the same.

Even a hypothetically ideal school report card will only have its desired effect insofar as people obtain, interpret, and appropriately use the information they derive from it. And unfortunately, people are flawed as information consumers and decision makers. Our cognitive abilities are limited, we are vulnerable to a wide range of biases, and we have only so much time and effort to invest in school searches.
Valant describes in the report how successfully informing the school-choosing public requires understanding which information best describes school quality and how people interpret information and utilize it as they make decisions. He offers theory on how people make decisions, before discussing what school-choosing families desire in schools, where they go for information, how information affects their attitudes and behaviors, and how adults and children might respond differently to the same information. He concludes with implications for the design and dissemination of school profiles and performance reports.