What will be the impact of the next president on public education in Ohio? We'll know a lot more about their different plans a month from now after both parties have held their nominating conventions and unveiled their formal platforms.
What will be the impact of the next president on public education in Ohio? We'll know a lot more about their different plans a month from now after both parties have held their nominating conventions and unveiled their formal platforms. But details emerging in recent speeches (McCain's to the NAACP, here, and Obama's to the American Federation of Teachers, here) offer a glimpse at the candidates' positions on education and what they might mean for Ohio.
Both candidates call for rethinking the entry process for new teachers, an increasingly important issue in Ohio. In 2005, 36 percent of Ohio public school teachers were age 50 or older. Because of incentives in the state's teacher-pension system (see here), this means that more than one-third of the teaching force is likely to retire by 2015.
Sen. McCain calls for expanding alternative licensure pathways that allow mid-career professionals and those educated outside traditional colleges of education to teach. McCain also would offer financial incentives to get the top 25 percent of college graduates into teaching and to keep alums of programs like Teach for America and the New Teacher Project in the classroom. Sen. Obama favors the traditional route to the classroom but would bolster it with residency programs and intensive mentoring for new teachers in high-need schools and scholarships to people who make teaching a career.
Both senators want to pay teachers more. Obama promotes a career-ladder-type plan under which "districts will be able to give teachers who mentor, or teach in underserved areas, or take on added responsibilities, or learn new skills to serve students better, or consistently excel in the classroom, the salary increase they deserve."
McCain wants to give bonuses to teachers in hard-to-staff schools and to high-achieving teachers but would give authority for doling out these bonuses to building principals, relying on their "good judgment and first-hand knowledge" of the teachers in their schools. McCain would also measure a teacher's achievement by the success of his or her students, and this would be informed at least in part by test scores.
Despite the academic gains Ohio has made over the past decade, troublesome achievement gaps still exist between economically disadvantaged children and their affluent peers and between children of color and white students. Sen. Obama proposes to address the achievement gap by finding federal money for expanding afternoon and summer learning opportunities for disadvantaged kids. He calls for earlier intervention with kids at risk of dropping out, too.
The candidates' positions are most divergent on school choice, especially the voucher variety. This year, Ohio's Education Choice scholarship program has awarded tuition vouchers to more than 10,000 youngsters in troubled schools-the program is capped at 14,000 scholarships annually. McCain supports such programs as important options when the traditional public-school system fails children. Sen. Obama, however, remains steadfastly opposed to spending public-school dollars on vouchers for children to attend private schools. Instead, Obama wants to "focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them."
Charter schools, it seems, fall into both candidates' definitions of the public-school system. Sen. Obama has supported charter-school legislation in the past in Illinois and says that "well-designed public charter schools have a lot to offer." How much he would embrace charters as president is less clear. His support of late has been tepid in contrast with McCain's unabashed support. Sen. McCain also proposes competitive federal funding for expanded online learning opportunities, including new virtual charter schools. Currently a quarter of Ohio's charter-school students (about 20,000 students) attend virtual schools.
An Ohio State University sociology professor says the state's new value-added method for measuring student academic progress is an improvement to the accountability system but still doesn't go far enough.
Sociology professor Doug Downey told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that Ohio's new approach is "substantially better" than the old method but he still doesn't think it goes far enough. He believes the accountability system would be better if, instead of one test, students are administered two tests (one in the autumn and one in the spring). Downey argues that one test does not measure how much students retain from the preceding year and a test should be administered in the autumn after students return to school to gauge that knowledge.
Further, in the current issue of Sociology of Education (see here) Downey and researcher Paul von Hippel argue that the common method many states use for evaluating schools, called the status model, is biased and unfairly labels schools that serve predominantly disadvantaged children as "failing."
The researchers believe the "status" model, which measures student achievement at a single point in time-as required by No Child Left Behind-fails in comparison to an "impact" model . An impact model attempts to measure how children build on what they have previously learned year to year. Impact models attempt to account for learning lost over the summer months but disadvantaged children are more likely to lose ground during that break (see here).
While Ohio's achievement tests can and should be improved, the problem isn't the tests. The real problem is that we have such huge disparities in test results and that not enough is being done to intervene with underachieving students as identified by the tests. For example, why are we still telling children who are academically behind to take the summer off? Ohio's standardized assessments remain the best indicator we have for telling whether children are proficient in basic subjects like math and reading.
Downey is correct, though, that achievement tests should be supplemented with other factors, like growth over time. The Ohio General Assembly, State Board of Education, and Ohio Department of Education are to be commended for bringing value-added indicators on-line and including them in the state's accountability system. Even under our current assessment system, there are schools that succeed in helping disadvantaged youngsters reach high levels of achievement. Perhaps, instead of adding tests and revamping the accountability system, the state should put that money and effort toward following the lead of KIPP and others by offering longer school days and an extended school year.
The state's new round of local report cards detailing last year's performance for Ohio public schools won't be made public until the last week of August, but district school officials are already scrambling to discredit the reports.
Representatives of the "Ohio Eight" urban districts met with the Ohio Department of Education last month to express concerns over the accuracy of last year's Ohio Achievement Tests (see here), and a Cincinnati Public Schools official expressed concerns over the validity of tests at particular grade levels and subjects (see here).
According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, half of Cincinnati's fourth-graders passed the math test in the 2006-2007 school year, but, as fifth graders, just 35 percent passed. Elizabeth Holtzapple, the district's student achievement data expert, told the Enquirer, "we think the testing scores should not fluctuate as much from year to year."
Last fall's Fordham report The Proficiency Illusion supports Holtzapple's concerns. The report found that Ohio's math exam isn't well-calibrated across grade levels, meaning that it is tougher to pass at some grade levels than others. In fact, the report found that Ohio's math test peaks in difficulty at the fifth grade (see here).
Such imperfections in the state's assessments, however, should not become an excuse for scrapping the system entirely. But they should remind the State Board of Education and Ohio Department of Education of the importance of continually refining and improving the tests, including reviewing cut scores and ensuring calibration across grades.
Black males trail white males in high-school graduation by an average of 28 percent nationally and in Ohio by 30 percent, according to a new report from the Schott Foundation for Public Education.
Over the past 25 years, the social, educational, and economic outcomes for black males have been devastating, and the new report from the Schott Foundation, Given Half a Chance: The Schott 50 State Report on Public Education and Black Males (see here), reveals a national graduation rate of a shocking 47 percent. Frankly, it's bad enough that only 75 percent of white males graduate, but that less than half of black males receive diplomas is deeply troubling. In Ohio, it's 49 percent vs. 79 percent.
The report notes that, in 10 states and the District of Columbia, there is a graduation gap of at least 30 percent between black males and white males. Oddly, the state with one of the highest graduation rate for white males-Wisconsin, at 87 percent-has one of the lowest graduation rate for blacks, at 36 percent. The report also found graduation problems for blacks tended to be concentrated in a few large urban areas, where graduation rates are low for both races.
It's not a uniformly bleak picture, however. In some states black males actually graduate at higher rates than white males-Vermont, for example, where 88 percent of blacks graduate compared with 75 percent of whites, and Maine (85 percent vs. 75 percent). The report credits this to more support, including larger numbers of talented teachers and supportive administrators. These states have challenging curricula and high expectations for all students. They also lack large black populations, so black males are more likely to go to school in a diverse educational environment.
Unfortunately, a lack of educational achievement is only the tip of the iceberg for black males, who, statistically, suffer more chronic unemployment, more health problems, have lower life expectancies, and are more likely to spend long periods in prison. Gov. Ted Strickland recognizes the magnitude of this problem and early in his term appointed former State Sen. C.J. Prentiss as his special representative for closing the achievement gap and raising the graduation rate for black males in Ohio (see here).
What will be the impact of the next president on public education in Ohio? We'll know a lot more about their different plans a month from now after both parties have held their nominating conventions and unveiled their formal platforms. But details emerging in recent speeches (McCain's to the NAACP, here, and Obama's to the American Federation of Teachers, here) offer a glimpse at the candidates' positions on education and what they might mean for Ohio.
Both candidates call for rethinking the entry process for new teachers, an increasingly important issue in Ohio. In 2005, 36 percent of Ohio public school teachers were age 50 or older. Because of incentives in the state's teacher-pension system (see here), this means that more than one-third of the teaching force is likely to retire by 2015.
Sen. McCain calls for expanding alternative licensure pathways that allow mid-career professionals and those educated outside traditional colleges of education to teach. McCain also would offer financial incentives to get the top 25 percent of college graduates into teaching and to keep alums of programs like Teach for America and the New Teacher Project in the classroom. Sen. Obama favors the traditional route to the classroom but would bolster it with residency programs and intensive mentoring for new teachers in high-need schools and scholarships to people who make teaching a career.
Both senators want to pay teachers more. Obama promotes a career-ladder-type plan under which "districts will be able to give teachers who mentor, or teach in underserved areas, or take on added responsibilities, or learn new skills to serve students better, or consistently excel in the classroom, the salary increase they deserve."
McCain wants to give bonuses to teachers in hard-to-staff schools and to high-achieving teachers but would give authority for doling out these bonuses to building principals, relying on their "good judgment and first-hand knowledge" of the teachers in their schools. McCain would also measure a teacher's achievement by the success of his or her students, and this would be informed at least in part by test scores.
Despite the academic gains Ohio has made over the past decade, troublesome achievement gaps still exist between economically disadvantaged children and their affluent peers and between children of color and white students. Sen. Obama proposes to address the achievement gap by finding federal money for expanding afternoon and summer learning opportunities for disadvantaged kids. He calls for earlier intervention with kids at risk of dropping out, too.
The candidates' positions are most divergent on school choice, especially the voucher variety. This year, Ohio's Education Choice scholarship program has awarded tuition vouchers to more than 10,000 youngsters in troubled schools-the program is capped at 14,000 scholarships annually. McCain supports such programs as important options when the traditional public-school system fails children. Sen. Obama, however, remains steadfastly opposed to spending public-school dollars on vouchers for children to attend private schools. Instead, Obama wants to "focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them."
Charter schools, it seems, fall into both candidates' definitions of the public-school system. Sen. Obama has supported charter-school legislation in the past in Illinois and says that "well-designed public charter schools have a lot to offer." How much he would embrace charters as president is less clear. His support of late has been tepid in contrast with McCain's unabashed support. Sen. McCain also proposes competitive federal funding for expanded online learning opportunities, including new virtual charter schools. Currently a quarter of Ohio's charter-school students (about 20,000 students) attend virtual schools.
