Ohio Gadfly Daily

There is near consensus that teacher-preparation programs need a facelift. Last summer, the National Center for Teacher Quality (NCTQ) released a withering critique of schools of education, characterizing their programs as “an industry of mediocrity.” Recently, the New York Times editorial board called America’s teacher-training system “abysmal” in comparison to other nations’ preparation programs. When Arthur Levine, former president of the Teachers College at Columbia University, studied teacher-prep programs, he found them to be a “troubled field characterized by curricular confusion, a faculty disconnected from practice, low admission and graduation standards, wide disparities in instructional quality, and weak quality control enforcement.”

Given these well-documented struggles of schools of education—with exceptions of course—you might find it hard to believe that every single teacher-prep program in Ohio, save one, received an “effective” rating from the Board of Regents.

But, let’s dig deeper into the content of the Regents’ second-annual Educator Preparation Performance Report  released this week. The report, required by state law, provides a wealth of information about Ohio’s teacher-prep programs. Here are the three key things to know about the results.

1.The teacher licensure exams: Everyone passes

An astounding 97 percent of Ohio’s teacher candidates achieved the state’s minimum score for passing their subject-matter licensure exam (Praxis II). In some content areas, the passage rate is a remarkable 100 percent. Seriously 100 percent. A closer look, however, indicates that Ohio’s “qualifying scores” are set too low—in fact, they...

As ESEA waivers change the school-accountability landscape, charter authorizers need to take the opportunity to rethink how we too can measure school progress. Ohio, as part of its Title I waiver, moved to an “A” to “F” rating system for schools, is implementing new standards and assessments, and is providing some flexibility around various reporting requirements. Ohio has also developed a new report card for schools that reports on—among other measures—AP/IB participation rates, student growth in multiple categories, gap closing, honors diplomas, industry credentials, and graduation rates. This revamp at the federal and state levels has, in turn, compelled us at Fordham to reconsider how we structure our own accountability plans for the eleven charter schools we authorize. This tension is captured in our recent report, Remodeled Report Cards, Remaining Challenges.

As per Ohio’s new school report card, the Buckeye State now deploys and reports on a slew of academic measures, including value-added scores for gifted students, students with disabilities, low-income students, and low-performing students. All are part of state accountability. Should they also be part of charter-to-authorizer accountability? Should we hold our charter schools to account for improving their performance on every measure that the state throws into its report card? When it comes to important authorizer decisions about schools—renewing their charters, putting them on probation, or letting them add grades or additional campuses, for example—what matters more: proficiency rates or growth? What about IB and AP passing rates? Graduation rates?

Looking at our authorized...

The achievement of Cleveland’s public school students continues to be appalling low, and the city’s students are falling even further behind their peers from other urban areas.

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education released city-level data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Cleveland is the only Ohio city that participates in the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), which reports data from twenty-one cities across the United States. NAEP--the "Nation's Report Card"--administers the assessments to a representative sample of U.S. students.

Among the cities that participated, Cleveland’s test scores placed them second-to-last, with only Detroit scoring lower. The percentage of Cleveland students who met NAEP’s proficiency standard are as follows: fourth-grade reading—9 percent; fourth-grade math—13 percent; eighth-grade reading—11 percent; eighth-grade math—9 percent. In comparison to 2011 (the last round of testing), Cleveland’s test scores were flat. Meanwhile, Cleveland’s average test scores in the four grade and subject combinations fall 30 to 37 points below Ohio’s statewide average NAEP score.

Startling also is the increasing gap between Cleveland’s test scores and those of other large cities. Consider the “Average Scores for District and Large Cities” trend charts (available here, here, here, and here and reproduced below). As one can see the achievement data (and the trend) for Cleveland’s students are grim, bleak, and unacceptable—and are yet another stark reminder that Cleveland’s bold education reforms, which have just begun, must be vigorously implemented and with all due haste.

Increasing gap between Cleveland achievement and...

  • Fall results on the state’s third-grade reading assessments provide a grim picture of student achievement and predict that thousands of children may be retained under the state’s new “reading guarantee” law.
  • The Ohio Department of Education reported a record-breaking year for enrollment in the state’s voucher programs. Over 31,000 students were awarded a publicly funded voucher to attend a private school for the 2013-14 school year.
  • Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) first year of allowing for open enrollment has gotten off to a strong start. CPS reports that it has “recruited several hundred students” from outside their district to attend a CPS school this fall.
  • Labor unions’ “Day of Action” spurs Cincinnati Public Schools school board to approve a “Resolution Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education,” but not all are on board with big labor’s principles.

We would like to extend our congratulations to Learn to Earn Dayton for recently being awarded a $200,000 grant from the Lumina Foundation to dramatically increase the number of individuals with post-secondary credentials in the Dayton region. Dayton is one of only twenty communities nationwide to partner with Lumina in this grant program. Other Midwest awardees include Cincinnati; Columbus, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; and Kalamazoo, MI.

Lumina’s grant aims to increase the number of people with post-secondary credentials, which will make the local economy stronger and, in turn, provide a better quality of life for individuals and strengthen communities. Outcomes-based goals will be used to measure effectiveness, and awardees will receive the funding over a three year period. One of Learn to Earn’s central goals is to ensure that youth in Montgomery County (which includes Dayton) earn a college degree or a credential—specifically, that by 2025, 55 percent of high school graduates will have achieved some post-secondary attainment within six years of high school graduation.

In addition to Learn to Earn’s award, we also congratulate Dayton Early College Academy (DECA) for winning a $478,241 award in Ohio’s “Straight-A” competitive-grant program. The purpose of the Straight-A Fund is to improve achievement and efficiency by funding innovative projects. DECA was one of just twenty-four grantees among 570 applications to receive funding for the 2013 fiscal year. DECA will use the funds to jump-start a summer-learning program, to improve its use of technology, and to engage parents more...

As Ohio transitions to a next-generation accountability system, educators must come to terms with student-growth models. Within the past year, the Buckeye State has introduced three new indicators of school performance that gauge the academic growth of student subgroups. These new indicators stand alongside a school’s growth performance for all of its tested students. Furthermore, the state now requires districts to implement principal and teacher evaluations, half of which are presently based on student-growth measures.

In view of the growing use of student growth in accountability, Ohio’s policymakers and educators should consult A Practitioner’s Guide to Growth Models. The authors of this must-read report provide a clear description of the seven growth models available—from the very rudimentary to the extraordinarily complex—and helpfully contrast the various models from both a statistical and applied perspective.

Of the seven growth models presented, there are two models that states are incorporating into their accountability systems: student-growth percentiles, or SGP (used in Colorado and Massachusetts, for example), and value-added, or VAM (used in Ohio and Pennsylvania). The key takeaways from this report are as follows:

VAM asks a different policy question than SGP.

According to the report, SGP does two things well—it describes and predicts student growth. Growth description unpacks “how much growth” a student group has made (e.g., classroom or school), while growth prediction gets at “growth to where” (i.e., to a proficiency standard) for a group of students. VAM, on the other hand, neither describes nor...

As 2013 draws to a close, let us turn our attention to the five top education issues that will make waves in Ohio in 2014.

Before we begin the countdown, it’s worth noting that many of these topics are going to look familiar to education-policy wonks for two reasons. First, 2014 is an election year. Historically, there has been less legislative activity during election years, so we probably won’t see a lot of new initiatives. Second, while 2013 was a busy policy year chock full of significant changes, there are still important initiatives that can be best described as unfinished business. Ohio leaders are likely to go back and try to finish what they started.

Without further ado, here are the top five education topics that will hit your radar in the new year.

5. Student data privacy

Concerns about student data privacy have taken center stage as an issue related to the Common Core State Standards. This concern has generated standalone legislation to strengthen Ohio’s data-privacy laws. House Education Vice Chair Andy Brenner has led this effort by sponsoring House Bill 181. The bill prevents the State Board of Education or the Department of Education from releasing or requiring the release of a student’s personally identifiable information to the federal government or to a multi-state test consortium, puts forth specific guidelines for and limitations upon the release of student information, and requires the annual disclosure of any approved student information releases made the prior year. Rep. Brenner shepherded...

John Mullaney

This week, $88 million dollars were awarded in the first round of the Governor’s Straight-A Fund to twenty-four schools across Ohio, out of a pool of 569 applications submitted. This one-of-a kind initiative is intended to incentivize innovations in teaching and learning across the state, to save money to the district, and to prove replicable in order to benefit other districts. The awards ranged from $14 million to $205,000.

I and four other colleagues from the philanthropic sector were among the educators, administrators, and business and venture capitalists invited to sit on the Grant Advisory Committee. One clear message to the committee was that the Straight-A Fund is attempting to create a set of demonstration projects across the state. The Fund holds the promise to truly change the way the public typically thinks of education in Ohio.

The process is creating a portfolio of projects that, if successful, will deliver the public a robust System of Schools with a portfolio of creative learning environments, rather than a one-size-fits-all School System. The grants have been awarded, and that is a good start. For the program to truly succeed, however, the follow-up will be the Governing Board’s greatest challenge. If done well, the Fund will serve as a national model.

For those of us in the philanthropic sector, the selection process was unlike anything we had ever seen. To ensure anonymity and impartiality, the state employed the expertise of statisticians from Ohio State University to assist. The committee was introduced to...

Aimee Kennedy

Two weeks ago, we read that many Ohio college students graduate tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Reporting on the Project on Student Debt’s latest analysis, the Dispatch’s Encarnacion Pyle wrote:

Despite efforts by colleges to hold their costs down, Ohio students who borrowed money and earned a bachelor’s degree in 2012 graduated with an average of $29,037 in student-loan debt…Continued.

Unless those students are writing a check on the stage at graduation, it’s safe to assume that interest will push what they owe to well over $30,000. Thirty-thousand dollars is a lot of money to owe, especially before your career is even underway.

What’s the answer for a system that saddles Ohioans with that kind of debt? Pyle’s piece offers comments and ideas from representatives of colleges and higher-education policy makers.

Could colleges do more to reduce costs? Probably. It’s great to see Chancellor Carey and others are focused on the issue.

Is that the only option? No, it’s not.

Too many students are spending time in college catching up on things they could have (and should have) learned in high school. Too many Ohio students are leaving high school unprepared for college. Why? Put simply, most high schools plan for students to earn a minimum credential that doesn’t provide them entry into either career or college: the high school diploma.

When a student graduates high school, we expect them to be able to choose one of three paths: college, a job, or starting...

The Common Core—the state’s new academic content standards for math and English language arts—has lit a fiery debate across Ohio. Vocal skeptics raise questions such as: Will the state lose its sovereignty in how students are educated? Will curricula become too “narrow”? Will technical manuals replace literary stalwarts like Hawthorne and Twain? Will schools have to assess students ad infinitum?

These are certainly legitimate concerns to raise. But amidst these worries—and in each instance, I might add that the concern is probably exaggerated—a larger question looms: How can Ohio secure its long-term economic prosperity?

Simple. To invest in the development of our children’s knowledge and skills.

The Common Core standards are such an investment. The Common Core places Ohio’s K-12 schools on a firmer foundation to build up its supply of human capital—human knowledge, skills, habits, and creativity taken together—the sine qua non for a robust economy.

Consider the standards themselves. The English language arts standards expect students to read texts closely[1] and to understand the nuances of how authors’ use the English language.[2] They require high-school students to draw on multiple texts to support their written analyses.[3] I think most  would agree that diligent reading skills, a command of language and vocabulary, and using textual evident to support a written conclusion are fundamental abilities for success in college or a demanding job.

Meanwhile, the math standards expect students to be able to interpret the equation y...

Pages