Certainly it's better to be rated 5th instead of 50th when it comes to ranking the quality of Ohio's education system. Over the last ten years Ohio has slowly, but steadily moved upward in these rankings from 25 to 5. Such improvement is a tribute to hard work by many people.
But what exactly is included in this ranking and does it reflect quality of results or something else?
Most of the indicators are not tied to quantifiable results, positive or otherwise. Most of the indicators are tied to a process or establishment of a standard rather than specific results.
The final ranking is a composite rankings of several areas. Below are the areas, grade and rank that contributed to Ohio's overall rank.
Chance for Success C+ (25)
Standards, Assessment & Accountability A ( 3)
Teaching Profession C+ ( 14 )
Finance C+ (18)
Transitions/Alignment B- ( 10)
K-12 Achievement C- ( 14)
Let's start with Ohio's top performing area: Standards, Assessments and Accountability.
Standards, Assessments and Accountability
As much as some among us may not want to admit this, Ohio's strong showing is due in large part to the work done from 1999-08 in creating and implementing comprehensive content standards, aligned assessments and a strong accountability system. Ohio achieves a perfect score of 100% in both standards and assessments primarily due to specific content standards organized by grade in all core subject areas and assessments that include both short and extended response questions in addition to multiple choice test questions.
Only slightly less impressive is Ohio's 91.7% score for our accountability system. Assigning rankings to both Title I and non-Title I schools beyond the use of AYP (required by NCLB) and intervening in failing schools also contributed to Ohio's highest ranked component.
Transitions and Alignment
This section of the rankings also does not deal with efficacy or results but instead focuses on policies that facilitate alignment at crucial transition points in states' education systems: preschool to kindergarten, high school to higher education and high school to the workforce.
Ohio does fairly well when compared to other states, receiving points for having established early childhood standards, establishing kindergarten readiness standards and assessing kindergarten readiness. The transition from K-12 to the workforce could be better, but Ohio does score above average in this area. Unfortunately the transition from high school to college does not fare as well. Passage of the Ohio Core in 2006 addressed college readiness and a college prep standard, but Ohio still lacks alignment of high school credits and assessments with higher education. The good news here is that implementing the ACT or SAT as the primary high school assessment may improve the ranking on this section. Given our failure in this area, we can not be surprised that Ohio continues to rank poorly in college readiness and adult educational attainment.
Teaching Profession
Ohio receives a grade of C+ and a ranking of 14 for the section dealing with the teaching profession. You might think that this section deals with instructional efficacy, but you'd be wrong. This section deals primarily with the existence of standards or requirements but not compliance or performance against standards.
Ohio gains points for having educator and professional development standards, time and funds earmarked for professional development, funded entry-year programs, and standards for mentor teachers. Interestingly enough, Ohio also receives credit for teachers' salaries being at least equal to salaries for comparable occupations.
According to the report, Ohio also receives credit for "linking teacher and student records to assessments results" and "student achievement being tied to teacher evaluations." There may be a few schools or districts that actually have this linkage, but it is not common and certainly not a statewide phenomenon. We'll follow up on this and see if we can determine how these items were scored and why.
Only slightly less impressive is Ohio's 91.7% score for our accountability system. Assigning rankings to both Title I and non-Title I schools beyond the use of AYP (required by NCLB) and intervening in failing schools also contributed to Ohio's highest ranked component.
Transitions and Alignment
This section of the rankings also does not deal with efficacy or results but instead focuses on policies that facilitate alignment at crucial transition points in states' education systems: preschool to kindergarten, high school to higher education and high school to the workforce.
Ohio does fairly well when compared to other states, receiving points for having established early childhood standards, establishing kindergarten readiness standards and assessing kindergarten readiness. The transition from K-12 to the workforce could be better, but Ohio does score above average in this area. Unfortunately the transition from high school to college does not fare as well. Passage of the Ohio Core in 2006 addressed college readiness and a college prep standard, but Ohio still lacks alignment of high school credits and assessments with higher education. The good news here is that implementing the ACT or SAT as the primary high school assessment may improve the ranking on this section. Given our failure in this area, we can not be surprised that Ohio continues to rank poorly in college readiness and adult educational attainment.
Teaching Profession
Ohio receives a grade of C+ and a ranking of 14 for the section dealing with the teaching profession. You might think that this section deals with instructional efficacy, but you'd be wrong. This section deals primarily with the existence of standards or requirements but not compliance or performance against standards.
Ohio gains points for having educator and professional development standards, time and funds earmarked for professional development, funded entry-year programs, and standards for mentor teachers. Interestingly enough, Ohio also receives credit for teachers' salaries being at least equal to salaries for comparable occupations.
According to the report, Ohio also receives credit for "linking teacher and student records to assessments results" and "student achievement being tied to teacher evaluations." There may be a few schools or districts that actually have this linkage, but it is not common and certainly not a statewide phenomenon. We'll follow up on this and see if we can determine how these items were scored and why.
Finance
Believe it or not, Ohio ranks reasonably well with respect to indicators in the finance section of the rankings. Ohio ranks 18 for school finance with a grade of C+. (Most of the data is from FY07.)
Two items in particular stand out here and contribute to Ohio's better than average standing in this section. Ohio ranks 15th in wealth neutrality with an index of .039 versus the .091 national average. (This index measures the relationship between district funding and local property wealth.) Ohio still has significant variance between the highest and lowest spending district, but our school funding system does a reasonable job at targeting additional resources to less wealthy districts. Also a plus for Ohio is the priority placed on education funding. Ohio ranked 6th (FY07) in the nation for percentage of tax revenues spent on state funding to education.
Chance for Success
The Quality Counts rankings include a section that examines a variety of indicators that contribute to opportunities for individual success. Ohio ranks 25 in this area with a grade of C+. Areas where Ohio scored well included NAEP 4th grade reading results, high school graduation rate, and the percentage of students whose parents are fluent English speakers. Ohio rated lower with respect to steady parental employment, annual income and educational attainment. Lower than average enrollment in kindergarten also dropped Ohio's score in this section.
Student Achievement
Ohio's lowest grade was assigned to the area of student achievement. Even though Ohio was assigned a grade of C- for student achievement, the ranking was 14. (Overall the national average grade for student achievement was D+. )
First the good news: Ohio ranked 10th for 4th grade mathematics achievement, and 12th and 11th respectively for 4th and 8th grade reading achievement based on NAEP scores. Ohio also experienced slightly above average gains in these three areas.
Now the bad news: 8th grade mathematics NAEP scores ranked 17th, but improvement of NAEP scores for 8th grade mathematics ranked 33rd. Ohio also ranks poorly with respect to the percentage of 8th graders scoring at the advanced level in mathematics with a rank of 30.
Advanced Placement scores are also somewhat of a good news/bad news mix. While Ohio saw improvement in the number of students scoring a 3 or better on AP exams, overall Ohio ranked 27, with overall rate of improvement ranked at 23.
Unfortunately, when it comes to mathematics, Ohio has more problems.
Quality Counts also offers "State Mathematics Indicators" that should command our full attention. The ranking looks at Performance, Improvement and Opportunity related to mathematics achievement. "Performance" includes NAEP scores, AP scores, and a measure of the achievement gap in mathematics. The "Improvement" measure looks at the rate of improvement in achievement measures and "Opportunity" assesses the number of students enrolling in Algebra I by 8th grade and the credentials of mathematics teachers.
With the exception of 4th grade mathematics NAEP scores, Ohio rates no better than middle of the pack or worse in this category. Perhaps most disturbing is that while nationally in approximately 18% schools 8th graders enrolled in Algebra I as the norm, in Ohio only 8% of schools met that standard.
So that's it. We hope we've helped you understand what these rankings are and what they are not and why Ohio was ranked 5th in the nation.
Questions?
Chance for Success
The Quality Counts rankings include a section that examines a variety of indicators that contribute to opportunities for individual success. Ohio ranks 25 in this area with a grade of C+. Areas where Ohio scored well included NAEP 4th grade reading results, high school graduation rate, and the percentage of students whose parents are fluent English speakers. Ohio rated lower with respect to steady parental employment, annual income and educational attainment. Lower than average enrollment in kindergarten also dropped Ohio's score in this section.
Student Achievement
Ohio's lowest grade was assigned to the area of student achievement. Even though Ohio was assigned a grade of C- for student achievement, the ranking was 14. (Overall the national average grade for student achievement was D+. )
First the good news: Ohio ranked 10th for 4th grade mathematics achievement, and 12th and 11th respectively for 4th and 8th grade reading achievement based on NAEP scores. Ohio also experienced slightly above average gains in these three areas.
Now the bad news: 8th grade mathematics NAEP scores ranked 17th, but improvement of NAEP scores for 8th grade mathematics ranked 33rd. Ohio also ranks poorly with respect to the percentage of 8th graders scoring at the advanced level in mathematics with a rank of 30.
Advanced Placement scores are also somewhat of a good news/bad news mix. While Ohio saw improvement in the number of students scoring a 3 or better on AP exams, overall Ohio ranked 27, with overall rate of improvement ranked at 23.
Unfortunately, when it comes to mathematics, Ohio has more problems.
Quality Counts also offers "State Mathematics Indicators" that should command our full attention. The ranking looks at Performance, Improvement and Opportunity related to mathematics achievement. "Performance" includes NAEP scores, AP scores, and a measure of the achievement gap in mathematics. The "Improvement" measure looks at the rate of improvement in achievement measures and "Opportunity" assesses the number of students enrolling in Algebra I by 8th grade and the credentials of mathematics teachers.
With the exception of 4th grade mathematics NAEP scores, Ohio rates no better than middle of the pack or worse in this category. Perhaps most disturbing is that while nationally in approximately 18% schools 8th graders enrolled in Algebra I as the norm, in Ohio only 8% of schools met that standard.
So that's it. We hope we've helped you understand what these rankings are and what they are not and why Ohio was ranked 5th in the nation.
Questions?
6 comments:
If we don't build on strengths and resolve weaknesses, we've peaked.
"We're Number Five! Nice While It Lasted!"
Standards: The range will compress as more states adopt common core standards. The ongoing weak revisions to social studies and science will also reduce our ranking.
Teacher prep: When will we leverage the recommendations from the NCLB cost study for improving student achievement through better teacher prep/professional development?
Well, enough for now. Our Governor's reforms clearly undo progress and fail to cost-effectively address weaknesses.
Re: Eric's comments on the Governor's reforms. When the only tool that you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. The primary tool available to the state with regard to education as it is currently structured is funding. While there are clearly needs to be met in that arena (continued movement towards equity), we have structured education in this state to be run at the local level--with the exception of certain basics (teacher licensing, bus safety, etc) for which districts are accountable to the state. And districts hold no accountability for the state of education at large. Any move from the state to alter district to district gaps will be met with local resistance. Unless we can break this local strangle-hold on the state, the progress you see (standards, equity in funding) will fall short of the progress still needed (increased achievement and decrease in the wide gaps from top to bottom and between demographic groups).
The state stands in essentially the same position as the feds--who must use cash (a al RrrT) as an incentive to bring about needed changes. In a cash-short time we are stuck.
Unless we can break this local strangle-hold on the state ...
Some of the best work at the state level originated locally, so I disagree.
I do agree that failure to translate wise state policy into student achievement is a local failure. But should Governor Strickland be encouraged to "break this local strangle-hold?" Certainly not.
Former State Superintendent Zelman's experience as a University of Michigan PhD student doing field work in Boston taught her what Thomas Jefferson knew:
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
Now that the political costs of applying President Jefferson's advice are clear, what are the odds that the new social studies standards will prepare Ohio schoolchildren to be effective citizens? Will Ohio education prepare Ohio schoolchildren to combat "abuses of constitutional power" through "wholesome discretion?"
There's a reason that businesspeople (like Bill Gates) look at the challenges facing public education and seek to start over from scratch with charters. When teachers' unions fail to address these same issues, they undermine the interests of their own membership--while consolidating their own political power in D.C. and state capitals.
Ohio's teachers deserve better unions. They deserve the legacy that Tom Mooney didn't live long enough to build.
Bottom line: local control is not the strangle-hold that worries me most.
Well, this isn't the article I thought I'd be writing this under, but Eric brought up unions...
I supported them for years and still believe they play a great role in helping teachers maintain a safe atmosphere for themselves and students.
My gripe is with their Legal Referral program. Teachers are told they have some huge amount of money at their disposal in case legal issues come up. Then, if something does come up, the firm (one) assigns a teacher an attorney. If the teacher is unhappy with that attorney, he must hire his own or go through with a Voluntary Surrender. I looked into hiring my own and found no one claiming to work with licensed professionals had ever worked with teachers.
The money is not insurance which you can use toward any attorney you want. Most people don't realize this until they're into the process for a year and are fed up.
I think the money they quote gives a false sense of hope. More cases would end up in Appeals Court if we had a variety of attorneys working on them. As it stands, the Conduct Unbecoming law is subjective and the OPC and the Board can revoke licenses for anything. They don't have to prove anything. More lawyers working on this could make the public force the OPC to be more reasonable or possibly make lawmakers work on the Conduct Unbecoming laws. The union attorneys basically say, "Let's just see what they're gonna do." Then, a year or so later, a teacher either gives up (VS) or loses his license.
I just think the union should not provide this legal service. I know it'd be expensive, but so is losing a career.
Eric--I have read Dr. Zelman's dissertation, albeit some time ago, and I don't know that her words with regard to Jefferson necessarily relate to my point. In fact--her work on parent involvement--as mandated at that time by the earliest pre-cursor to ESEA and NCLB--showed that even at the "local" level there is insufficient trust in the enlightenment of the people to act on parent involvement requirements in any but a cursory way. This, in fact has not changed in NCLB--despite continued requirements of parent involvement. In fact, as parents are sytemically denied meaningful involvement at the local level, they have little recourse to the state, which lacks powers of enforcement with regard to this issue. The single change with regard to parent involvement that comes through NCLB is the additional "consumer" role accorded to individual parents, who have increased opportunity to "vote with their feet."
But--what I was talking about is the set up of the current system which places communities (regardless of the level of citizen involvement) in competition with each other for basic resources. These resources include dollars with which to operate, teachers and finally a "customer" base of families to send their children to the schools of the local community. In urban/suburban communities this is particularly intense, with the end result that those with financial resources win out over those without. Any movement in the direction of equalization of resources is fought mightily by those who "have."
To entrust the education of the children of our state to such an ongoing catfight is not about placing trust in the people. It is about dividing the people into factions based on race, income and geography. Who, I ask, is served?
... the end result that those with financial resources win out over those without ... equalization of resources is fought mightily by those who "have." ... dividing the people into factions based on race, income and geography. Who, I ask, is served?
Are schoolchildren better served in county-wide districts? The timeframe required to address these inequities exceeds the timeframe courts have set for remedying the effects of past discrimination. Should our priorities be righting the abuses of the wealthy or serving the needs of the poor?
PS: I started a response regarding Dr. Z's dissertation, but thought it best to post this quick response for now.
Post a Comment