How should Ohio seek to improve its lowest achieving public schools?
NOTE: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute occasionally publishes guest commentaries on its blogs. The views expressed by guest authors do not necessarily reflect those of Fordham.
NOTE: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute occasionally publishes guest commentaries on its blogs. The views expressed by guest authors do not necessarily reflect those of Fordham.
In its version of the state budget bill, the Ohio House included language that would place more weight on student growth measures when calculating charter sponsor ratings.
By Brandon L. Wright
Note: This blog originally appeared in a slightly different form as a guest commentary in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer.
By Brandon L. Wright
By Brandon L. Wright
Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, the federal School Improvement Grants program is gone, but the goal of school improvement remains. States must now use seven percent of their Title I allocation for these efforts, but are no longer constrained by a prescribed menu of intervention options.
By Tom Gunlock
Ohio’s draft plan for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) came out earlier this month, and we at Fordham continue to
In early February, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) released the first draft of its state plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
By Brandon L. Wright
On this week's podcast, Checker Finn, Alyssa Schwenk, and Brandon Wright discuss the ongoing debate about whether school accountability is best done via the parent marketplace or state assessments. During the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines whether struggling students are more likely to leave charter schools than traditional public schools.
NOTE: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute occasionally publishes guest commentaries on its blogs. The views expressed by guest authors do not necessarily reflect those of Fordham.
One of the hallmarks of school accountability is the identification of and intervention in persistently low-preforming schools.
Today Education Week released its annual Quality Counts report card for states. Ohio earned a C with an overall score of 74.2, aligning the Buckeye State for the second year in a row with national U.S. average (also 74.2).
Teacher evaluation was one of President Obama’s signature policies, and a controversial element of education reform during his tenure.
Countless studies have demonstrated that teacher quality is the most important school-based determinant of student learning, and that removing ineffective teachers from the classroom could greatly benefit students.
On this week’s podcast, Checker Finn, Robert Pondiscio, and Alyssa Schwenk discuss America’s performance on two recent international assessments, TIMSS and PISA. On the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines a U.S. Department of Education guide on how to teach writing.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has put the future of teacher evaluations firmly in the hands of states. Ohio is now in full control of deciding how to develop and best implement its nascent system.
Eleven weeks ago, in High Stakes for High Achievers: State Accountability in the Age of ESSA, the Fordham Institute reported that current K–8 accountability systems in most states give teachers scant reason to attend to the learning of high-achieving youngsters.
As students and teachers settle back into school routines, thousands of high schoolers are getting their first taste of classes that are supposed to prepare them for college. Some of them are sitting in Advanced Placement courses, while others have enrolled in district-designed advanced courses.
By Kathryn Mullen Upton
By Michael J. Petrilli
Last week, several of my Fordham colleagues published a fantastic fifty-state review of accountability systems and how they impact high achievers. Lamentably, they found that most states do almost nothing to hold schools accountable for the progress of their most able pupils.
During the No Child Left Behind era of education reform, now winding down, teachers, schools and districts were tacitly encouraged to focus their efforts on raising the floor rather than raising the roof on student achievement. Whether by accident, choice or neglect, high-achievers as well as those merely "above proficient" received little attention. And why should they?