Ohio Gadfly Daily

Fordham invites you to what promises to be a fascinating panel discussion: Private Schools and Public Vouchers.

January 8, 2014 roundup of Ohio education news stories

The Columbus City Schools' Board of Education took some important steps forward yesterday. Hope everyone's on board.

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 are considerably below the 50th percentile. Table 1 shows Ohio’s qualifying scores required to pass the exam, the national median score on the exam, and the passage rates. The five most-commonly-taken exams in Ohio are displayed. 

Table 1: Low qualifying scores, high passage rates

...

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 schools, the growth-versus-proficiency question is particularly salient because many students arrive in their classrooms far below grade level. Columbus Collegiate Academy, for example, serves students in grades 6 through 8, and at least 90 percent of them are economically disadvantaged. Many sixth graders enter well below grade level. However, by...

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 large cities - Average scores, 4th and 8th grade math and reading, 2003 to 2013

...

Vouchers, the third-grade reading guarantee, open enrollment, and big labor hit the news in Ohio in the last two weeks.

An ambitious program to increase the number of people with post-secondary credentials will take root in Dayton thanks to a grant won by Learn to Earn.

We look at A Practitioner's Guide to Growth Models.

Pages