In Ohio, a proposed Republican bill, Senate Bill 295, has ignited significant debate regarding the automatic closure of underperforming public schools. Introduced by State Senator Andrew Brenner, the legislation aims to modify existing rules governing school closures. It defines a low-performing school as one serving grades four and above that falls within the bottom 5% of public schools based on its Performance Index Score for three consecutive years. A school might also be categorized as underperforming if it ranks in the bottom 10% for its Value-Added Progress over the same timeframe. Brenner anticipates that this bill will standardize the closure process for both public and community schools, ensuring that Ohio students have access to quality education.
Currently, Ohio charter schools face automatic closing if they fail to meet performance benchmarks for three consecutive years, a feature lawmakers like Brenner argue has beneficial side effects by motivating schools to improve. The challenge, however, is how such practices may adversely affect traditional public schools. During the latest Senate Education Committee meeting, the bill drew substantial opposition, with 17 individuals testifying against it compared to just one in support. Opponents, including Ohio Federation of Teachers President Melissa Cropper, raised concerns that using percentile rankings to define school performance could lead to unintended closures of schools that, despite being ranked poorly, have not declined in actual performance. Cropper suggests that this approach is inherently flawed, as it can result in well-performing institutions being caught in the arbitrary criteria for closure.
Another significant issue raised by critics is the potential negative impact on staffing at struggling schools. Brenner proposes that, instead of closure, schools could replace their principals and 60% of licensed staff; however, Cropper and other opponents express skepticism. They highlight an existing teacher shortage that already poses challenges to filling positions, especially in low-performing schools. Critics contend that having the option to replace staff could further deter educators from seeking employment in schools that are already facing significant challenges.
Scott DiMauro, President of the Ohio Education Association, emphasizes that the bill represents an excessively punitive state approach to local schools struggling with low ratings. He thinks that rather than providing meaningful support to these institutions, the proposed legislation focuses on punitive measures that could destabilize environments where many positive changes might be occurring, albeit not fully captured by standardized testing metrics. According to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, approximately 10% of Ohio school districts currently do not meet the state’s educational standards, indicating a need for intervention rather than outright closure.
Questions also arise regarding the logistics and implications of closing schools. Senator Catherine Ingram from Cincinnati inquired about the fates of students displaced by closures, to which Brenner responded that they would be redirected to other schools, mirroring the system in charter school legislation. However, the practicalities of such transitions raise further concerns about student welfare, access to quality education, and the adequacy of alternative placements.
As the legislative session accelerates towards its conclusion, the fate of Senate Bill 295 remains uncertain. Should the bill fail to pass, it will lapse and require reintroduction in the next General Assembly. The intensity of the debate surrounding S.B. 295 highlights deep divisions regarding educational policy in Ohio, particularly about finding a balance between holding schools accountable for their performance and ensuring they receive the necessary support to thrive.