Cleveland Shows the Way, and the Importance of Money

_{Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton talks with students as she tours classrooms at John Marshall High School in Cleveland, Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2016, before participating in a campaign event. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)}

RCEd Commentary

Money might not be everything in education, but it’s far more important than many suggest.

This is no more evident than in Ohio. In 2012, Cleveland embarked on a mission to reshape its schools. Four years later, we are seeing some encouraging things, such as graduation rates up by the largest percentage of any Ohio urban district, improving scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and enrollment growth for the first time in decades, there remain significant hurdles for Cleveland’s ultimate success.

One impediment that seemed most overriding of all was simple: money. When the Ohio legislature passed Cleveland’s plan in 2012, it did so at the beginning of what eventually became about a $47 million annual cut in state education funding for Cleveland.

Another impediment was not simple: a labor crisis that could have led to a teacher strike Thursday, but was narrowly averted by a marathon negotiation session.

Despite the labor agreement, trouble remains. Because what has happened in Cleveland illustrates the biggest hurdles for large-scale reform in Cleveland and around the country: without adequate, committed funding and teacher buy-in, these efforts will likely fall short of expectations.

Because of state funding cuts, Ohio data shows there are about 700 fewer teachers in Cleveland than there were prior to the plan. And that’s despite a record-setting, locally raised $85 million property tax levy, which is up for renewal this fall. As has been the case in Ohio for many years, new levies pay to keep layoffs from being too drastic. Gone are the days of new money leading exclusively to new programming.

The state cuts have also forced the district to forgo many of its more innovative plans, such as Early Childhood Academies, which could have streamlined the incredibly important goal of reaching children as early as possible in their neighborhoods prior to attending their neighborhood schools. This has meant that the systemic, generational improvements many seek for Cleveland are likely to be a slower slog because the system to most dramatically improve those outcomes won’t be in place. Instead, Cleveland will have to hang its hat on non-uniform performance and graduation improvements, which do exist, but involve more nuanced arguments – always problematic in the 140-Character Age.

As for the teacher strife, the Cleveland Plan was introduced without teacher input, which immediately caused suspicion among teachers. And while Cleveland’s teachers did agree to undo the first-in, last-out system that so many deride, the fact is the district and teachers could not agree for two years what the district’s new, potentially groundbreaking differentiated compensation system should resemble. So, in the meantime, teachers were under a merit-pay system that gives raises based solely on test scores and supervisor evaluations – a system the people of Ohio rejected by a 2-to-1 ratio in 2011.

These implementation issues should teach reformers around the country something I’ve been saying for years – work with teachers rather than against them. These are our children’s frontline troops. Yet more and more rhetoric seeks to marginalize teacher issues as “adult” problems that serve as impediments to the children’s educational needs. Teacher issues should not be diminished just because it may seem irrelevant to student learning. It should be treated seriously because adult problems can quickly become student problems if allowed to fester.

And finally, it’s become fashionable to say that money doesn’t matter in education, or at least more money won’t matter. Yet if that’s the case, then why do Ohio’s wealthiest communities spend $17,000 per equivalent pupil while Cleveland -- with the 100 percent free and reduced lunch rate, according to the Ohio Department of Education -- spends $10,636 per equivalent pupil? If it takes $17,000 plus for high-wealth districts to achieve their lofty performance ratings, how much will it take for Cleveland to achieve those same scores, given its 100 percent free and reduced lunch population?

Regardless of what you think about spending more money, spending less money certainly won’t help, will it? Yet that’s what Ohio’s legislature and governor did to Cleveland – demand they implement a potentially revolutionary education reform plan with substantially less of the state’s money, betting that Cleveland voters would tax themselves at substantially higher rates to pay for their idea. It is indeed impressive that Cleveland has achieved the success it has despite this major hurdle – a testament to its teachers and leaders.

I would implore all policymakers to once and for all put their money where their mouths are. If you really believe in a particular reform measure, pay for it. For more than a year or two. Fund it so it can work, not so it can flounder and fail. All that does is give public education a bad name.

The one thing I’ve learned from my six-month look at Cleveland’s successes and challenges is this: The two easiest ways to ensure reform’s success are to pay for it and to involve education’s frontline troops – its teachers – in its development. If you do, then you have the funding to implement the change, and the committed staff to make it work.

Only then can our ideas meet our kids’ needs.