A new Data Quality Campaign (DQC) report finds that states are making impressive progress toward building longitudinal data systems and are taking the first steps to ensure that new information is used to improve student outcomes and system-wide performance. But the results, which are based on a survey of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, also show that most states have much work to do around key practices, such as following student progress from pre-school through college and the workforce, sharing student-level progress reports with teachers, and providing adequate training around data use.
Ohio Report:
Friday, February 12, 2010
Ohio’s Other Gap
While NCLB is closing the gap between rich and poor and ethnic groups at the proficient level, the gap at the advanced level is widening.
NAEP proficiency level and percentile data as well as results from state assessments demonstrate the existence of substantial excellence gaps for Black, Hispanic, and Free and Reduced Lunch Eligible students on most exams. White students had higher average AP scores than Black students on AP tests and were more likely to make a “5” on an AP exam or take an AP exam while Hispanic performance was more competitive. Ohio state assessments have fairly rigorous standards for advanced status.
According to NAEP proficiency data, the percentage of students at the advanced level increased in Math for non-FARM and white students, with additional improvements among FARM students in Grade 8 and among Black students in Grade 4. Declines among minority and FARM students in Reading Grade 4 and Black students in Grade 8 led to increases in the excellence gap.
NAEP scale scores at the 90th percentile increased for most subgroups in Math, with FARM and Hispanic students improving more rapidly than their peers in Math Grade 8. Achievement gaps increased in Reading in large part due to declines among FARM and minority students.
The proportion of high-achieving students increased across grade levels among income and ethnic subgroups on Math assessments (except for Hispanic students in Grade 4), with over-represented populations growing more rapidly than under-represented groups. The results in Reading were more ambiguous, with reductions in the excellence gap in Grade 4 and 7 due to stagnation or decline among white and affluent students while Grade 10 saw similar patterns in Math.
On the AP exam, there were increases in achievement gaps in mean AP scores and the number of tests taken, weighted by enrollment. In the percentage of tests that scored a 5 (unweighted), the gap between white and Black students increased while the gap between white and Hispanic students decreased. The gap between white and Black students increased in the percentage of test that scored a 5 (weighted).
NAEP proficiency level and percentile data as well as results from state assessments demonstrate the existence of substantial excellence gaps for Black, Hispanic, and Free and Reduced Lunch Eligible students on most exams. White students had higher average AP scores than Black students on AP tests and were more likely to make a “5” on an AP exam or take an AP exam while Hispanic performance was more competitive. Ohio state assessments have fairly rigorous standards for advanced status.
According to NAEP proficiency data, the percentage of students at the advanced level increased in Math for non-FARM and white students, with additional improvements among FARM students in Grade 8 and among Black students in Grade 4. Declines among minority and FARM students in Reading Grade 4 and Black students in Grade 8 led to increases in the excellence gap.
NAEP scale scores at the 90th percentile increased for most subgroups in Math, with FARM and Hispanic students improving more rapidly than their peers in Math Grade 8. Achievement gaps increased in Reading in large part due to declines among FARM and minority students.
The proportion of high-achieving students increased across grade levels among income and ethnic subgroups on Math assessments (except for Hispanic students in Grade 4), with over-represented populations growing more rapidly than under-represented groups. The results in Reading were more ambiguous, with reductions in the excellence gap in Grade 4 and 7 due to stagnation or decline among white and affluent students while Grade 10 saw similar patterns in Math.
On the AP exam, there were increases in achievement gaps in mean AP scores and the number of tests taken, weighted by enrollment. In the percentage of tests that scored a 5 (unweighted), the gap between white and Black students increased while the gap between white and Hispanic students decreased. The gap between white and Black students increased in the percentage of test that scored a 5 (weighted).
REPORT GIVES OHIO A GRADE OF 'D+' FOR POLICIES THAT IMPACT QUALITY OF TEACHERS
A new report by the not-for-profit, non-partisan National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) finds that Ohio's teacher policies largely work against the nation's goal of improving teacher quality. While the national focus on teacher quality has never been greater, the broad range of state laws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession too often impede rather than promote serious reform.
NCTQ's 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook examined state policy across five areas that include teacher preparation, evaluation, tenure and dismissal, alternative certification and compensation. Ohio earned the following grades, resulting in an overall grade of D+:
• Delivering Well Prepared Teachers: D
• Expanding the Teaching Pool: D
• Identifying Effective New Teachers: C-
• Retaining Effective New Teachers: C
• Exiting Ineffective New Teachers: D
NCTQ President Kate Walsh said, "The release of the 2009 Yearbook comes at a particularly opportune time. Race to the Top, the $4.5 billion federal discretionary grant competition, has put unprecedented focus on education reform in general, and teacher quality in particular. We believe that the Yearbook provides a road map for achieving a Race to the Top grant, identifying where states are on the right track and where they have considerable work to do.
Walsh continued: “Unfortunately, states have tremendous ground to make up after years of policy neglect. There is much more Ohio can do to ensure that all children have the effective teachers they deserve."
Among the findings about Ohio:
• Ohio's evaluation and tenure policies do not consider what should count the most about teacher performance: classroom effectiveness. Ohio does not require any objective measures of student learning in teacher evaluations and does not require annual evaluations for all teachers. It also does not require that districts collect or consider any evidence of teacher effectiveness as part of tenure decisions.
• Ohio makes it too difficult for districts to attempt to dismiss poor performers by failing to articulate a policy for dismissing teachers for poor performance separate from dismissal policies for criminal and morality violations. Ohio also allows multiple appeals of dismissals.
• Although Ohio claims to offer an alternative route to certification, its burdensome requirements block talented individuals from entering the profession.
• Ohio's requirements for the preparation of elementary teachers do not ensure that these teachers are well prepared to teach mathematics. While the state's policies do address the science of reading instruction, Ohio fails to ensure that its elementary teachers are well prepared to teach reading through an appropriate test.
• Ohio sets low expectations for what special education teachers should know, despite state and federal expectations that special education students should meet the same high standards as other students.
• Ohio fails to exercise appropriate oversight of its teacher preparation programs. The state allows programs to admit candidates without passing a basic skills test. It also fails to hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.
• The financial sustainability of Ohio's retirement system is also uncertain, based on the state's own report.
Despite these findings, Ohio has some bright spots, including its support of differential pay for teachers in high-needs schools and shortage subjects. Ohio also passed legislation recently that may further bolster its teacher preparation and evaluation policies.
NCTQ's 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook examined state policy across five areas that include teacher preparation, evaluation, tenure and dismissal, alternative certification and compensation. Ohio earned the following grades, resulting in an overall grade of D+:
• Delivering Well Prepared Teachers: D
• Expanding the Teaching Pool: D
• Identifying Effective New Teachers: C-
• Retaining Effective New Teachers: C
• Exiting Ineffective New Teachers: D
NCTQ President Kate Walsh said, "The release of the 2009 Yearbook comes at a particularly opportune time. Race to the Top, the $4.5 billion federal discretionary grant competition, has put unprecedented focus on education reform in general, and teacher quality in particular. We believe that the Yearbook provides a road map for achieving a Race to the Top grant, identifying where states are on the right track and where they have considerable work to do.
Walsh continued: “Unfortunately, states have tremendous ground to make up after years of policy neglect. There is much more Ohio can do to ensure that all children have the effective teachers they deserve."
Among the findings about Ohio:
• Ohio's evaluation and tenure policies do not consider what should count the most about teacher performance: classroom effectiveness. Ohio does not require any objective measures of student learning in teacher evaluations and does not require annual evaluations for all teachers. It also does not require that districts collect or consider any evidence of teacher effectiveness as part of tenure decisions.
• Ohio makes it too difficult for districts to attempt to dismiss poor performers by failing to articulate a policy for dismissing teachers for poor performance separate from dismissal policies for criminal and morality violations. Ohio also allows multiple appeals of dismissals.
• Although Ohio claims to offer an alternative route to certification, its burdensome requirements block talented individuals from entering the profession.
• Ohio's requirements for the preparation of elementary teachers do not ensure that these teachers are well prepared to teach mathematics. While the state's policies do address the science of reading instruction, Ohio fails to ensure that its elementary teachers are well prepared to teach reading through an appropriate test.
• Ohio sets low expectations for what special education teachers should know, despite state and federal expectations that special education students should meet the same high standards as other students.
• Ohio fails to exercise appropriate oversight of its teacher preparation programs. The state allows programs to admit candidates without passing a basic skills test. It also fails to hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.
• The financial sustainability of Ohio's retirement system is also uncertain, based on the state's own report.
Despite these findings, Ohio has some bright spots, including its support of differential pay for teachers in high-needs schools and shortage subjects. Ohio also passed legislation recently that may further bolster its teacher preparation and evaluation policies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
