Governor Kasich Condemns Welfare Reform While Embracing “School Reform” That Leads to Joblessness
Today’s NYTimes features an op ed piece by former Presidential aspirant and current Ohio Governor John Kasich. In his essay, Mr. Kasich singles out the “one-size-fits-all” approach for special condemnation:
But today, it’s clear that our welfare system is still deeply flawed, thanks in part to later changes from Washington. In 2005, Congress pulled power back from the states, reducing local flexibility by enforcing a one-size-fits-all approach that sets arbitrary time limits on education and training for people seeking sustainable employment. As a result, too many lives are thrown away by a rigid and counterproductive system that treats an individual as a number, not as a person who is desperate to gain new skills and opportunities in life.
As anyone who is familiar with “school reform” realizes, Ohio was one of several states who embraced the test-and-punish model of schooling with Ohio simultaneously rushing to institute market-based deregulated charter schools to help meet the needs of those students who could not pass the graduation test the first time around. The performance of these schools drew criticism from the Fordham Institute, which is usually a reliable cheerleader for “reform”:
Using student-level data collected by the state Department of Education from 2006 to 2010, the analysts report dropout counts and rates for Ohio’s high schools, both district and charter. While the report is chock-full of data, the pieces that are most jaw dropping relate to Ohio’s virtual and “dropout-recovery” schools. For example, in 2009–10, Virtual High School, operated by Cincinnati Public Schools, had a 93 percent dropout rate (196 dropouts over the school year, relative to a baseline high school enrollment of 211) and the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) had a dropout rate of 53 percent (2,908 dropouts relative to an enrollment of 5,468). The dropout rates for Ohio’s brick-and-mortar dropout recovery schools were worse, some greater than 200 percent, meaning that these schools had more than twice the number of dropouts than their baseline enrollment. These appalling statistics should call into question the efficacy of Ohio’s virtual and dropout-recovery-school programs. Still, these statistics could be more illusion than reality, for dropping out of school tends to be a process over time rather than a discrete event. Hence, it is not resolved whether dropouts should be entirely attributed to a student’s final schooling destination—a thorny issue that the report acknowledges. For instance, consider a student who went to Cleveland Metropolitan School District in grades K–8 but then went to one year at a dropout-recovery school before dropping out. Should the dropout-recovery school be held wholly accountable? Probably not. Nevertheless, as the report highlights, there are too many “dropout factories” among Ohio’s high schools—and, as evidenced, too many of the state’s second-chance “recovery” efforts fail to get our high schoolers to the finish line.
So while he condemns the one-size-fits-all approach to welfare reform, Mr. Kasich is all in on the one-size-fits-all approach to public education and, in doing so, has created more drop outs among low income students than most states in our country… and, as the Fordham Institute notes, the drop out rates of the so-called “recovery schools”, on-line for profit schools specifically designed to help students who fail the one-size-fits-all graduation examination, are especially appalling. If Mr. Kasich wants to address job placement for 16-24 years olds, he would be wise to abandon “reform” in K-12 schooling.