Ohio Gadfly Daily

Hot off the presses: sometimes even a signed and sealed deal can't secure a facility for charter school.

Ron F. Adler

Guest commentary on the need for diligence on the part of authorizers at the front end of charter school creation.

I had the good fortune of attending the Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP) conference last week. AEFP attracts some of the nation’s finest researchers along with a small smattering of policymakers and advocates. Cutting-edge research on topics ranging from parents and school choice, adequacy in school funding, and value-added accountability were presented, and the working papers are online and well worth perusing.

The conference was a veritable buffet of dialogue on education research and policy, and the following are the three main ideas I took away:

  • First, there is a growing stable of researchers who are willing to tackle challenging but pressing policy issues. A few of the more ambitious projects came from graduate-student researchers who are making valiant efforts to answer thorny and (perhaps) impossible research questions. Some of the interesting studies included preliminary work on a return-on-public-investment model for charter schools, whether “adequacy and equity” court cases have contributed to achievement gains, and whether value-added models of teacher effectiveness have “floor” and “ceiling” effects (i.e., bias VAM estimates of teachers with many low- or high-achieving students). It’s evident that the education-research community is moving in the right direction by making concerted efforts to answer questions that matter for sound policy and practice.  
  • Second, to cease testing and data collection would cripple promising research avenues. There is growing concern about testing and data collection among education policymakers and the public. The backlash is understandable. But make no mistake: if states backtrack on testing and collecting administrative data, high-quality research will grind to a halt or become prohibitively expensive. Since the early 2000s, Ohio has developed a longitudinal information system, which can now support high-quality and policy-relevant studies such as our student mobility work. Policymakers should not undo a state’s effort to collect
  • ...

Two pieces of pending legislation promise to derail long-planned changes to K-12 testing in Ohio if passed; we take a look at the implications of holding the line vs breaking ranks.

Online charter schools have been the primary driver of sector growth; with a number of implications

A Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) plan in Kalamazoo has shown some early results; we look at the possible implications for urban education in Ohio.

A slight improvement for Ohio in the annual digital learning report card

Breakthrough Schools in Cleveland and vocational education across Ohio are in the news.

Duplication is not always a good thing. Think about it, most of us don’t carry two cell phones. In a world with limited pants-pocket space, two phones would be senseless, right? Ohio’s school report cards have two essentially-the-same achievement components, both of which receive an A-F letter grade. It’s time to toss one of them for parsimony’s sake.

The first, the indicators-met component, is determined by whether 75 percent of a school’s test-takers reach proficiency on the state’s twenty-four assessments (85 percent for eleventh grade). The second, the performance-index component (PI), is a composite score weighted by the proportion of test-takers who attain each of the state’s five achievement levels.

Though the two indicators differ slightly, they produce very similar results for any given school. In other words, if a school gets a low PI letter grade, it is nearly assured that it will receive a low indicators-met grade. The same is true in the reverse—high PI schools will likely get a high indicators-met grade. Here’s the evidence.

Table 1 shows the letter grades of Ohio’s 3,089 schools by indicators met and PI. As you can tell, the grades correspond closely. For example, 99 percent of schools that received an A for indicators met received either an A or B on PI. One-hundred percent of schools that received a B on indicators met received a B or C on PI. Well over one-thousand schools received an A/B grade combination. There are very few schools that received mixed, high-low ratings: 302 schools received an F/C; 15 schools received an A/C; 48 schools received a D/B.   

Table1: Practically all schools receive similar grades - Number of schools by their indicators met and performance-index grade, Ohio schools, 2012-13

When we consider the...

Pages