The Education Gadfly Weekly

Center for American Progress
By Robin Chait and Raegen Miller
March 2010 

Robust data systems, performance-based professional standards, and rigorous evaluation systems are three components Ohio can use to create better “infrastructure” to support recruiting, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers.  That’s the latest from Center for American Progress’s Treating Different Teachers Differently, a report calling for state and local policymakers to reconsider how to:

• encourage the most effective teachers to stay in the profession;
• leverage the talents and reach of the most effective teachers;
• discourage the least effective from remaining in the profession and dismiss chronically ineffective teachers; and
• improve the performance of all teachers and thus improve student outcomes.

Ohio’s teacher policies were a major reason the state didn’t win first round Race to the Top funding, but there room for hope. Ohio was recently lauded by Education Week for last year’s budget bill that pushed teacher tenure until after the seventh year of employment. Gov. Strickland also introduced an innovative plan for teacher residencies, though the devil is in the details and it remains to be seen how useful they will be for improving teacher effectiveness. The Buckeye State can go further by rethinking the frequency and substance of teacher evaluations and by including some form of student performance metrics in evaluations.

Treating Different Teachers Differently doesn’t mask the complexity of these issues. Opponents of performance pay make good points about whether a test can capture a teacher’s (and student’s) entire performance. In a recent Ohio Gadfly guest editorial, researcher Doug Clay explained flaws within Ohio’s value-added system and cautioned how it should be used.

Still, this shouldn’t stand in the way of figuring out how performance-based data can serve as one of several metrics in decisions around retaining, rewarding, or dismissing teachers.  Data on student and teacher performance isn’t about rooting out those pesky teachers who won’t teach to the test.  Accurate data can actually help teachers determine which of their methods are most effective, rather than punishing them for ones that aren’t.  Read it here.

Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University
Manyee Wong, Thomas D. Cook, & Peter Steiner
November 2009

This report uses fourth and eighth grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results from 1990-2009 to determine whether No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB) accountability mandates have improved student achievement. The researchers compared national NAEP scores of students in public schools and private schools, and contrasted NAEP scores in states with varying levels of rigor in their student proficiency requirements (and thus with varying degrees of likelihood that schools will fall below Adequate Yearly Progress and be subject to NCLB’s sanctions). Both comparisons serve to analyze the scores of students at NCLB-reformed schools against the scores of students in schools who were not subject to NCLB reforms. 

The results, as Debra Viadero at Education Week suggests, are not an “epitaph” for NCLB. From 2002-onward (post NCLB), fourth and eighth grade math scores improved at a higher pace in schools subject to NCLB-mandated reforms than at schools not subject to the law. Reading scores also improved, though less dramatically, as a result of both NCLB reforms and higher state proficiency standards. While the authors are quick to caution that this is not a comprehensive study of NCLB, their findings are significant as they illustrate that the law’s accountability framework—as well as rigorous academic standards in some states – may be at least partially responsible for increases in student achievement.

This research is especially pertinent as reauthorization of NCLB (aka the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or ESEA) is underway, and as many states will soon be adopting common academic standards, which according to a recent Fordham review are more rigorous than what many states currently have.

This is all the more reason for Ohio (a state ranked by this report in the “medium” category for its state standards, and receiving a “D” and a “C” in Fordham’s last analysis of state standards) to be enthusiastic about adopting Common Core standards. It also offers reason to be cautiously optimistic that accountability mechanisms found in the next iteration of ESEA could boost student achievement nationally and in the Buckeye State. Read the report here.

Naomi and Victor Chudowsky
Center on Education Policy
March 2010

This new report from CEP brings good news and bad. The good: According to state assessments, there is no consistent gender gap between boys and girls in math in elementary, middle, or high school. The bad: Boys continue to lag behind girls in reading at all three levels. The report analyzes state-level 2007-08 test data in all 50 states for grades 4, 8, and high school (grade 10 or 11, depending on the year tested) and then compares those scores to 2002. In 2007-08, roughly even amounts of boys and girls scored proficient in math, and no state had a gap larger than ten percentage points. In reading, on the other hand, boys clock in behind girls at every grade level and in every state with measurable data (forty-five of the fifty qualified), with some gaps as large as or larger than ten points. Good news for the Buckeye State – Ohio’s largest gap was six percent, in 10^th grade reading.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t tell us much, because the proficiency bar is so low in some, nay many, states that the higher-achieving group is already mostly above the bar. Thus, any improvements by the lower-achieving group will “close” the gap. Furthermore, gap comparisons don’t tell how well students are actually learning. A better metric is to look at average scores, which the report does briefly. It finds that gaps have actually increased in some states; in other words, more boys are reaching "proficiency," while their female classmates are outpacing them at higher and higher levels. An even better way to calculate these comparisons is with NAEP data. Luckily, the NAEP reading scores were just released, allowing us to do just that. The results are somewhat different. Between 2002 and 2009, the fourth-grade gender gap in reading remained the same--because average scores for both groups went up. And though the gap also stayed steady in eighth grade over the same period, it has actually narrowed since 1992. You can read CEP’s report here.

Charter schools are different from traditional district schools in that they are free of many regulations and operating constraints, but in return for their freedoms they are held accountable for their results. Those charter schools that fail to deliver results over time are closed, the theory holds. Yet, strict charter accountability in the form of closure collides with the efforts of states like Ohio to use federal school improvement dollars to turn around troubled charter schools.

President Obama and U.S. Education Secretary Duncan are pushing the school turnaround concept hard through the Race to the Top competition and School Improvement Grants. Andy has written extensively about the many challenges that face turnaround efforts, and has mustered much evidence against the cause.

Strict charter accountability in the form of closure collides with the efforts of states like Ohio to use federal school improvement dollars to turn around troubled charter schools.

Despite Andy's strong case against all turnarounds, I have argued that there are times when the turnaround strategy may have merit for school districts. Of course, we should take on turnarounds with a healthy dose of skepticism and with the understanding that most will fail. But, in cities like Fordham's hometown of Dayton, half of the community's schools perennially receive an F or D on the state's academic report card.

Why would we want to place an ironclad ???no??? on a reform-minded superintendent who might seek a portfolio of reforms, including the strategic use of turnarounds? Dayton has been in a perpetual state of reform for 15 years, including launching one of the largest charter sectors in the country, and still most children attend a poorly rated school. Limiting reform efforts here makes no sense.

Still, some question whether it is good public policy to use federal school improvement dollars to try to turn around troubled charters, especially as this contradicts the notion that charters are supposed to be closed for perpetually poor performance. About half of Ohio's 55 ???persistently lowest achieving schools??? (Tier 1 School Improvement Grant schools) are charters. As charters in Ohio are independent Local Education Agencies (LEAs) they are eligible for ???federal school improvement dollars.??? They can use these dollars to try to turn themselves around and many will surely do so.

So, I have a question for my fellow charter school supporters and reformers, should federal dollars be used to try to turn around failing charters, or should these schools simply be closed?

???Terry Ryan

Members of Ohio’s School Funding Advisory Council have expressed concerns about the efficacy of the state’s new evidence-based model (EBM) of school funding. As Ohio heads into the next biennium with a staggering $8 billion deficit, tough questions about the expensive mandates imposed by the EBM aren’t just partisan drivel; they are part of a necessary public policy debate. It’s a reasonable expectation to want to know that the state can actually afford.

The co-creator of the EBM himself – Lawrence Picus, a researcher from the University of Southern California – attended the council’s March 25 meeting in Columbus and had a chance to answer council members’ burning questions. How do other states implementing the EBM perform academically? Does Ohio have to adhere exactly to the EBM, as designed by Drs. Picus and Odden – or can it deviate? How much will it cost to fully implement Ohio’s EBM? Will effective Buckeye State districts have to modify their current policies, and who will pay for it?

Unfortunately, Dr. Picus’s responses to these critical questions were usually contradictory or incomplete. His presentation of evidence behind the original EBM wasn’t reassuring either, as his list of educational best practices from which the funding model is derived appears to have no discernible connection to the costly mandates with which Ohio leaders are now struggling.

Dr. Picus presented “10 steps” that can “double student performance,” arguing that these serve as the common thread among all high-achieving schools:

1. Analyze state tests to understand performance challenges
2. Set higher goals
3. Adopt a new curriculum
4. Commit to data-based decision making
5. Invest in professional development
6. Focus class time more efficiently
7. Provide interventions to struggling learners
8. Create professional learning communities
9. Empower leaders to support instructional improvement
10. Take advantage of external expertise

Dr. Picus provided no explanation as to how these “steps” correlate with the actual mandates imposed by the EBM. For example, how did “focusing class time more efficiently” or “creating professional learning communities” get translated into prescriptions for health and wellness coordinators and mandated student-teacher ratios for Limited English Proficient students? From what “step” is the mandate for family and community “liaisons” derived, for set numbers of building managers and secretaries, or for per pupil funding levels for “extracurriculars?”

For the Buckeye State, this debate matters greatly. The salary costs alone of hiring new teachers as a result of the EBM’s reduced K-3 class sizes will be nearly $800 million annually. Why stipulate so many requirements for schools already facing severe budget pains – unless, of course, we have very strong evidence that the EBM will definitively raise student achievement?

But it’s here that Ohio has reason to worry. The “evidence” from Wyoming and Arkansas – the two states that have employed the EBM the longest – is bleak. Consider the flatness of their NAEP reading and math scores in the graphs below, or the fact that Ohio seems to be on pace with the national average (and performing even higher at some junctures) without the EBM. Picus had little to say when council members questioned Wyoming’s and Arkansas’s test scores, despite admitting that “the test [of the EBM) is whether or not children are learning."

Lawmakers and council members must realize that just because Ohio has officially adopted the EBM doesn’t mean we should ignore countervailing evidence that it isn’t working elsewhere and that our state may very well not be able to afford it.

The Columbus City Schools could potentially save millions in transportation expenses, which make up 8 percent of the district’s budget, by requiring students to attend schools close to their homes, according to a report presented to the school board last week. However, leadership quickly refuted the recommendation to reduce educational options and defended the district’s open enrollment policy.

Columbus has magnet schools that offer special curricula or educational programming, and students enter a lottery to gain admission. The district also allows district-wide open enrollment so that children can attend a school other than their neighborhood school if a slot exists. The district buses students to the school they select.

Additionally, state law requires districts to provide the same transportation services to private-school and charter-school students as its own students. Other states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, have similar laws making the school district responsible for busing all students.

While the prevalence of school choice may be smart from an educational perspective, it is no doubt costly. The district transports nearly 40,000 students daily this school year, but the Columbus Dispatch reported that the district needed 75 more buses than it had two years ago to transport just 263 more students because of difficulty in routing buses around the city in sync with school schedules.

In response to the report, school board member W. Shawna Gibbs told the Dispatch that the instructional impact of choice deserves a review separate from the impact on transportation. Superintendent Gene Harris agreed but acknowledged that one of her goals is to entice parents to return their kids to their neighborhood schools.

Center for American Progress
By Robin Chait and Raegen Miller
March 2010 

Robust data systems, performance-based professional standards, and rigorous evaluation systems are three components Ohio can use to create better “infrastructure” to support recruiting, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers.  That’s the latest from Center for American Progress’s Treating Different Teachers Differently, a report calling for state and local policymakers to reconsider how to:

• encourage the most effective teachers to stay in the profession;
• leverage the talents and reach of the most effective teachers;
• discourage the least effective from remaining in the profession and dismiss chronically ineffective teachers; and
• improve the performance of all teachers and thus improve student outcomes.

Ohio’s teacher policies were a major reason the state didn’t win first round Race to the Top funding, but there room for hope. Ohio was recently lauded by Education Week for last year’s budget bill that pushed teacher tenure until after the seventh year of employment. Gov. Strickland also introduced an innovative plan for teacher residencies, though the devil is in the details and it remains to be seen how useful they will be for improving teacher effectiveness. The Buckeye State can go further by rethinking the frequency and substance of teacher evaluations and by including some form of student performance metrics in evaluations.

Treating Different Teachers Differently doesn’t mask the complexity of these issues. Opponents of performance pay make good points about whether a test can capture a teacher’s (and student’s) entire performance. In a recent Ohio Gadfly guest editorial, researcher Doug Clay explained flaws within Ohio’s value-added system and cautioned how it should be used.

Still, this shouldn’t stand in the way of figuring out how performance-based data can serve as one of several metrics in decisions around retaining, rewarding, or dismissing teachers.  Data on student and teacher performance isn’t about rooting out those pesky teachers who won’t teach to the test.  Accurate data can actually help teachers determine which of their methods are most effective, rather than punishing them for ones that aren’t.  Read it here.

Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University
Manyee Wong, Thomas D. Cook, & Peter Steiner
November 2009

This report uses fourth and eighth grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results from 1990-2009 to determine whether No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB) accountability mandates have improved student achievement. The researchers compared national NAEP scores of students in public schools and private schools, and contrasted NAEP scores in states with varying levels of rigor in their student proficiency requirements (and thus with varying degrees of likelihood that schools will fall below Adequate Yearly Progress and be subject to NCLB’s sanctions). Both comparisons serve to analyze the scores of students at NCLB-reformed schools against the scores of students in schools who were not subject to NCLB reforms. 

The results, as Debra Viadero at Education Week suggests, are not an “epitaph” for NCLB. From 2002-onward (post NCLB), fourth and eighth grade math scores improved at a higher pace in schools subject to NCLB-mandated reforms than at schools not subject to the law. Reading scores also improved, though less dramatically, as a result of both NCLB reforms and higher state proficiency standards. While the authors are quick to caution that this is not a comprehensive study of NCLB, their findings are significant as they illustrate that the law’s accountability framework—as well as rigorous academic standards in some states – may be at least partially responsible for increases in student achievement.

This research is especially pertinent as reauthorization of NCLB (aka the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or ESEA) is underway, and as many states will soon be adopting common academic standards, which according to a recent Fordham review are more rigorous than what many states currently have.

This is all the more reason for Ohio (a state ranked by this report in the “medium” category for its state standards, and receiving a “D” and a “C” in Fordham’s last analysis of state standards) to be enthusiastic about adopting Common Core standards. It also offers reason to be cautiously optimistic that accountability mechanisms found in the next iteration of ESEA could boost student achievement nationally and in the Buckeye State. Read the report here.

Naomi and Victor Chudowsky
Center on Education Policy
March 2010

This new report from CEP brings good news and bad. The good: According to state assessments, there is no consistent gender gap between boys and girls in math in elementary, middle, or high school. The bad: Boys continue to lag behind girls in reading at all three levels. The report analyzes state-level 2007-08 test data in all 50 states for grades 4, 8, and high school (grade 10 or 11, depending on the year tested) and then compares those scores to 2002. In 2007-08, roughly even amounts of boys and girls scored proficient in math, and no state had a gap larger than ten percentage points. In reading, on the other hand, boys clock in behind girls at every grade level and in every state with measurable data (forty-five of the fifty qualified), with some gaps as large as or larger than ten points. Good news for the Buckeye State – Ohio’s largest gap was six percent, in 10^th grade reading.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t tell us much, because the proficiency bar is so low in some, nay many, states that the higher-achieving group is already mostly above the bar. Thus, any improvements by the lower-achieving group will “close” the gap. Furthermore, gap comparisons don’t tell how well students are actually learning. A better metric is to look at average scores, which the report does briefly. It finds that gaps have actually increased in some states; in other words, more boys are reaching "proficiency," while their female classmates are outpacing them at higher and higher levels. An even better way to calculate these comparisons is with NAEP data. Luckily, the NAEP reading scores were just released, allowing us to do just that. The results are somewhat different. Between 2002 and 2009, the fourth-grade gender gap in reading remained the same--because average scores for both groups went up. And though the gap also stayed steady in eighth grade over the same period, it has actually narrowed since 1992. You can read CEP’s report here.