In 2015, reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) included a provision asking states to ensure that all students have equal access to qualified and effective teachers. States were given a lot of leeway to determine quality and effectiveness, but were required to submit a raft of data to the federal government to document their chosen avenues. Six years later, the collection and reporting processes for those data are the topics of a policy brief by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). Here’s a look at their analysis with a focus on Ohio.
There are nine areas of data reporting with which NCTQ is concerned: Does the state report on the proportion of out-of-field teachers in a way that is approximately aligned to research consensus? Does the state report on the proportion of inexperienced teachers in a way that is approximately aligned to research consensus? Does the state choose to report on teacher effectiveness using definitions/methodology grounded in research? Has the state published data at least once in the last two years? Does the state publish this data at the state, district, and school level? Does the state disaggregate their reporting by Title I and race/ethnicity? Does the state report how individual LEA’s compare to the state average? Does the state follow best practices for accessibility in data reporting? Does the reporting include the ability to download or export the full data set?
The Buckeye State gets full marks for reporting data in five of these nine areas. Most importantly are the three measures of teacher quality for inexperienced, out-of-field, and ineffective teachers. NCTQ analysts downgraded many states for their questionable definitions of effectiveness and for collecting data that they do not make public, but Ohio is one of eighteen states that both defines effectiveness in accordance with research-based practices and publicly reports the data it collects. The timeliness and ease of exportability of data publications are also deemed up to scratch in Ohio. The state received only partial credit for data disaggregation, as we lack the finest-grained school-building-level and racial-minority-status breakouts. In the negative column, Ohio does not compare local education agencies’ data directly to the state average, nor does it follow NCTQ’s three best practices for accessibility in data reporting.
All of this serves to put Ohio mid-pack in NCTQ’s analysis. Pennsylvania fares worst, meeting none of the nine benchmarks even partially; Oklahoma gets partial credit in just one category. Colorado is at the top in terms of passing grades, missing only disaggregation of data at the school building level. Florida, Rhode Island, and Washington State, while varying in their overall rankings, are all singled out for specific positive aspects of effectiveness definitions, data breakouts, and accessibility/comparability of their reports.
Of the four recommendations for states included in NCTQ’s brief, only one applies directly to Ohio: improving how data is reported so it is clearer how schools and districts fare in relation to the state average or “other obvious points of comparison.”
All in all, it seems Ohio took the less-than-crystal-clear guidance provided by the federal government six years ago and did a reasonably good job in actualizing it. How all of this compliance theater contributed to the actual goal of ensuring “that all students have equal access to qualified and effective teachers” is the province of other analyses.
SOURCE: Shayna Levitan, Shannon Holston, and Kate Walsh, “Ensuring Students’ Equitable Access to Qualified and Effective Teachers,” National Council on Teacher Quality (April, 2022).
