The Education Gadfly Weekly

National Center for Education Statistics
March 2009

The United States still has some catching up to do in science and math education before its schools can stand equal to those in other G-8 nations, according to the fourth in a series of reports published by the Institute of Education Services' National Center for Education Statistics. The report draws from the results of four international student assessments.

Although American students scored higher than average than several of their G-8 peers in reading on the Progress in International Reading Study, their performance in mathematics and science left much to be desired.

On the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study assessment, Japanese students outperformed students in all other participating G-8 countries with 26 percent of eighth graders reaching the advanced benchmark compared with only six percent of U.S. students. On the Program for International Student Assessment, 15-year-old students in the United States scored lower than their peers in the U.K., Germany, Japan, and Canada. About one-quarter of them scored at or below the lowest proficiency level on the test.

The report notes that teachers in the United States have a lower average number of years of teaching experience than all of the other G-8 countries and a higher frequency of behavior problems in the classroom, but it would be difficult to point to either of these as the main cause for the continuing lackluster results.

The United States isn't doing everything wrong, though. The percentage of teachers participating in professional development in mathematics and science was significantly higher than most other G-8 countries. Considering that in 2008 the United States had the largest percentage gain in the population of 5-to-29-year-olds, the population most likely to be enrolled in education, it would be worth our while to spend some time figuring out why our students are performing lower in certain areas than their peers in the world's other most economically developed countries.

For the report, see here.

Ohio, birthplace of the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, and Neil Armstrong has received a D-plus in the use of technology in education (see here), according to an Education Week survey.

Oddly, though, the state received a B-minus in the capacity to use technology, so we seem to have it but we don't know what to do with it.

However, some Ohio education experts say the survey is misleading in that it misuses the term "technology" by implying only computer-related technologies and that it distorts the issue of "technology standards." Technology includes aerospace, agriculture, manufacturing, materials, environment, energy, and other issues, they said.

In the survey of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, Ohio was ranked 47^th in the use of technology. Ohio tied Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington (all with D-plus scores). The District of Columbia was last with the lone F.

Education Week evaluated the use of education technology in four categories: Do state standards for students include technology? Does the state test students on the use of technology? Has the state established a virtual school? And, does the state offer computer-based assessments? Ohio met the standard only for having state achievement standards that includes the use of technology.

At the top were Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia. They all had scores of 100.

Federal stimulus dollars will begin flowing into the state as early as this week, according to State Superintendent Deborah Delisle.

The money will flow through the state education department and both she, as state schools chief, and Gov. Ted Strickland must sign off on how the money is used. A second round of stimulus funding will come in October. However, while the districts theoretically have to follow the federal rules in spending the money, Delisle admitted she can't make them. How the rules are followed the first time, however, could make a difference in the second round of funding. (See more on this issue here.)

Delisle made the comments last week in a wide-ranging discussion with members of the Ohio Grantmakers Forum (see here).

Delisle said districts may receive some flexibility on mandated student-teacher ratios under the proposed revamping of Ohio's education system. Instead of trying to attain a 1-15 ratio, for example, a district may choose to use extra state money for mathematics or literacy programs or some other need.

"One of our goals is to not overwhelm districts," she said.

Delisle said she has proposed a transition plan to Strickland that would impose new requirements gradually on districts, "so districts don't feel we're dumping all of this work on them at one point."

Delisle, who has 34 years in public education and was superintendent of the Cleveland Heights-University Heights school district before coming to the state, has become Gov. Ted Strickland's principal cheerleader concerning an education-reform proposal that has come under increasing fire for how it would allocate state money to schools (see above), its seeming de-emphasis of core academic standards and accountability for softer and nebulous "21^st century skills," and its de-funding of charter schools.

Invoking the governor's name frequently throughout the 60-minute conference call, she said Strickland wants to "push fast and furious" to boost the quality of teachers in Ohio's classrooms, establish a career ladder for teachers, and strengthen licensing requirements. Teacher unions, however, are pushing back on some parts of the plan, especially the proposals to delay tenure decisions from three years to nine years and to allow administrators to assign teachers as needed, which would be a blow to seniority provisions in union contracts.

Delisle said Ohio needs to focus on closing the achievement gap between urban and suburban students, especially on how poverty affects learning. "The governor believes the child is central in education reform," she said. "Education is key to economic recovery and development in Ohio. While many people will ask about adding jobs, focusing on education is the right focus. It looks to the future."

The plan to extend the school year to 200 days from its current 180 days is also running into opposition from amusement park owners, who depend on family vacationers, and from small business owners, who hire high school students as cheap summer help (see here).

From the other direction, the superintendent said she's been receiving complaints from parents who object to the state granting five calamity days that don't have to be made up. These parents, Delisle said, feel that the taxpayers bought and paid for 180 days of education and they should receive it.

Delisle balanced the school-year debate with information about education in some foreign nations, particularly Columbia, which she visited recently. Schools in that country are open for 200 days a year, there's a 94 percent literacy rate, and many people speak two languages.

Two Ohio lawmakers on opposite sides of the political aisle say it is critical for the state to address a looming pension crisis among teachers and other public-sector employees.

"There have been rumblings about pensions for some time. We've seen bloated pension benefits take down companies like GM," said Rep. Seth Morgan (R-Huber Heights).

Morgan and Rep. John Domenick (D-Smithfield) believe the needs of public pension funds, including the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS), all of which have been hit hard by the world financial crisis, need to be addressed.

"There will be a problem down the road," Domenick said.

In 2007, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute raised serious questions (see here) concerning the long-term viability of the STRS fund, which serves 458,000 current or retired teachers. Last year's financial meltdown has only heightened fears.

The STRS expects its unfunded liability to more than double to $38 billion by July based on investment expectations (see here). The fund is below required minimums mandated by law but no one in state government has shown any inclination to enforce the law.

During its March meeting, the STRS board said that without changes the system would not be able to meet future benefits. The board instituted what it termed long-term contingency planning because of the "significant impact market losses have had on both the system's pension and health care funds" (see here).

While there is no problem meeting short-term obligations, the STRS noted in its board report:

However, looking long term, the reduced level of investment assets, combined with future expected investment earnings and member and employer contributions, leave a shortfall in the funding of STRS Ohio benefits. Staff projects that the system's unfunded liability will increase to approximately $38 billion on July 1, 2009, from $18.2 billion on July 1, 2008, assuming the market loss is 25 percent for this fiscal year. This will result in a funded ratio (percentage of assets on hand to pay all benefits accrued by STRS members to-date) of 58 percent and a funding period of infinity. This means that, unless changes are made, the system would eventually be unable to pay members' earned benefits.

The STRS board said that clearly the current expected long-term rate of eight percent cannot be raised. The board said that changes in contributions and in other factors such as minimum retirement age, early retirement, the cost to purchase service credit, the retirement formula, the cost-of-living adjustment, and how a teacher's final average salary is calculated may be needed. Most of these changes would require legislation.

An STRS spokesperson did not return calls from The Gadfly.

Some states are already moving to shore up their public retirement systems by changing benefits and/or seeking greater employee contributions. In New Mexico, for example, new public employees will see the retirement work requirement increase five years, from 25 years to 30 years (see here).

"We just have to have a system where people work longer and contribute more for that system to make it fly," New Mexico House Republican Leader Tom Taylor told the Las Cruces Sun News. "You just can't design a system where you work a shorter period of time than you are retired. It doesn't take an actuary to figure that one out."

Meanwhile, Ohio has joined a federal lawsuit against Bank of America over pension system losses (see here). The STRS and the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System are among five retirement systems alleging that Bank of America made false statements and did not disclose important information when it acquired Merrill Lynch in late 2008.

The five public funds lost about $274 million from their transactions in Bank of America securities between July 21, 2008, and January 20, 2009. Losses for the State Teachers Retirement System were $35.5 million, and for the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, $67.8 million.

On top of the funds' financial challenges, Gov. Strickland's education proposals call for hiring more teachers, administrators, nurses, and other school employees. But no one is sure exactly how many will be hired and what impact the new hires could eventually have on the STRS, or on local school districts that must not only pay more salaries but also face the real possibility of increased retirement contributions as well.

"No one knows how many people will be hired. The governor is being incredibly opaque (in sharing ideas on how his plans will be implemented)," said Morgan, a certified public accountant. He also said promised increases in state education funding would not pay for the cost of the additional hires.

Taxpayers are, ultimately, on the hook if pension funds go bust because these benefits are protected under Ohio's constitution. Morgan said the state needs to address the fiscal questions before they become a crisis.

"Most small companies have moved from defined-benefit to defined-contribution plans," he said. "No one wants to sound the alarm because no one wants to deal with the issue of teacher retirement."

Domenick said much of the problem is political with neither party wanting to help the other resolve critical issues. "Everyone runs away from the hot topics," he said. "Who is going to step into the fire? Your legs are going to be cut off."

National Center for Education Statistics
March 2009

The United States still has some catching up to do in science and math education before its schools can stand equal to those in other G-8 nations, according to the fourth in a series of reports published by the Institute of Education Services' National Center for Education Statistics. The report draws from the results of four international student assessments.

Although American students scored higher than average than several of their G-8 peers in reading on the Progress in International Reading Study, their performance in mathematics and science left much to be desired.

On the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study assessment, Japanese students outperformed students in all other participating G-8 countries with 26 percent of eighth graders reaching the advanced benchmark compared with only six percent of U.S. students. On the Program for International Student Assessment, 15-year-old students in the United States scored lower than their peers in the U.K., Germany, Japan, and Canada. About one-quarter of them scored at or below the lowest proficiency level on the test.

The report notes that teachers in the United States have a lower average number of years of teaching experience than all of the other G-8 countries and a higher frequency of behavior problems in the classroom, but it would be difficult to point to either of these as the main cause for the continuing lackluster results.

The United States isn't doing everything wrong, though. The percentage of teachers participating in professional development in mathematics and science was significantly higher than most other G-8 countries. Considering that in 2008 the United States had the largest percentage gain in the population of 5-to-29-year-olds, the population most likely to be enrolled in education, it would be worth our while to spend some time figuring out why our students are performing lower in certain areas than their peers in the world's other most economically developed countries.

For the report, see here.