After a very busy spring, lawmakers are rapidly approaching the finish line for the biennial state budget. Among the many key issues they are tackling is how to improve math achievement given that only half of Ohio students are proficient on state tests.
It’s been a bit of a rollercoaster so far. Governor DeWine wisely proposed expanding access to advanced math and implementing universal screeners in early grades, but overlooked promising ideas like identifying high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) and addressing teacher math content knowledge. In April, the House scrapped almost all of DeWine’s math provisions. And then, last week, the Senate restored DeWine’s proposals and added a few smart ones of their own.
Amidst all this back and forth, some Ohioans might be wondering if improving numeracy policy is worth all the fuss. According to a recent report from Gallup, the answer is unequivocally yes. The national survey, which is part of a larger “Math Matters” series, gathered feedback from a nationally representative sample of 1,471 education leaders (203 superintendents and 1,268 principals) and 808 parents of K–12 students. Let’s examine four big takeaways and how they apply to Ohio.
1. High-quality instructional materials are essential.
Research demonstrates that HQIM can improve student learning and achievement. But the Gallup report wisely notes that teachers “must be knowledgeable about HQIM, and the materials’ implications for student learning, to leverage them effectively.” And unfortunately, survey results indicate that only one in five education leaders are “very familiar” with the concept of HQIM.
One would hope that in Ohio—where HQIM has been a hot topic for years courtesy of the state’s science of reading initiative—principals and superintendents are among those who are “very familiar” with the concept. After all, they’re currently required to select their reading curricula and instructional materials from a state-approved list of HQIM. But that list only exists for reading. There is no such list for math, which means that education leaders could be struggling to select high-quality options.
The Senate’s version of the budget solves this problem. It requires the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) to establish a list of high-quality math core curriculum and a list of evidence-based math intervention programs. Although public schools wouldn’t be required to use what appears on the state’s list, they would have to report their math core curriculum and instructional materials to the state. This is an important transparency measure that will help state leaders and advocates determine how many schools are using HQIM in math.
2. Current and future teachers need better training in math.
Research indicates that when professional development (PD) is aligned to curriculum and content it better supports teachers. That, in turn, can lead to improved student outcomes. The Gallup survey finds that about 59 percent of education leaders report that their math-related PD is completely or mostly aligned with their curriculum. Meanwhile, more than a third (39 percent) of leaders would rate the quality of their school or district math-related professional learning as fair or poor.
The Gallup survey doesn’t mention teacher preparation, but that’s equally important. A recent report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) found that when it comes to how much time preparation programs spend training teacher candidates in math content, more than a third (36 percent) of Ohio’s elementary programs earned a grade of D or F for failing to provide sufficient instruction. Moreover, Ohio’s current teacher licensure standards allow an elementary teaching candidate who fails the math section of the state’s composite content knowledge exam to still teach math as long as they earn an overall passing score.
Taken together, the issues uncovered by Gallup and NCTQ suggest that many Ohio teachers—both current and future—aren’t receiving the kind of training they need. Bolstering pre-service teacher training efforts (see here and here for ideas) and providing content-aligned PD (like what Ohio is already doing in reading) would go a long way toward addressing these issues.
3. Ohio must address its teacher data problem.
According to Gallup, reports of staffing challenges are “widespread” across content areas but are the worst in math. Forty-eight percent of education leaders say that finding well-qualified math teachers is “very challenging,” compared to 42 percent for science, 21 percent for English language arts, and 13 percent for social studies. Meanwhile, some schools are struggling more than others. Education leaders serving low-income communities, rural areas, and middle or high schools are more likely than their peers to say they experience challenges while hiring math teachers.
It’s likely these discrepancies also exist in Ohio. But we have no way of knowing for sure, because Ohio doesn’t collect data on teacher vacancies. If the Senate’s version of the budget becomes law, that will change. After the House eliminated it, lawmakers in the upper chamber wisely restored DeWine’s proposal for DEW to collect and publish data on teacher vacancies. The Senate also strengthened the governor’s proposal by requiring DEW to report vacancy data at the district and school level and for charters and STEM schools. This information will be crucial in helping state and local leaders pinpoint potential teacher shortages not only in math, but other subjects, too.
4. Parents need more information from schools.
According to the Gallup results, only about half of parents receive regular communication from schools about what their child is learning in math. Forty-three percent report receiving “infrequent” communication, including 17 percent who say they receive no information at all.
Communication isn’t the only thing that parents find lacking. Although research shows that high-quality, frequent math tutoring can improve achievement, only 31 percent of parents report that their child receives one-on-one or small group math tutoring. Even fewer (13 percent) say it occurs more than once per week. Among the 69 percent of parents whose children are not enrolled in tutoring, almost half would enroll their student if it were available.
The Senate’s version of the budget could help Ohio parents on both fronts by requiring public schools to provide academic intervention services to students who score limited on math and reading state tests. Schools would also be required to develop an improvement and monitoring plan for each student who qualifies for intervention services in math, and to involve parents in developing that plan. (A similar policy already exists for reading.) These plans, which must be implemented until a student achieves current grade-level skills, must include high-dosage tutoring opportunities. Although these communication and intervention efforts wouldn’t happen for all kids—only students who score limited qualify—focusing on struggling students is a step in the right direction.
***
Over the next few weeks, policymakers will have to find a way to reconcile three very different budget proposals put forth by the governor, the House, and the Senate. In numeracy, at least, the choice should be simple: The Senate’s plan, which solves several problems highlighted by the Gallup survey, is the best path forward.
