The Education Gadfly Weekly

Andrew J. Rotherham and Sara Mead

Education Sector, February, 2006

 

This report takes a hard look at what it means to make Newsweek’s recent list of best high schools in America. Newsweek’s rankings are generated using a fairly simple measure—the Challenge Index, which is determined by dividing the number of Advanced Placement (AP) tests and International Baccalaureate (IB) tests taken at a particular school by the number of graduating seniors. Rotherham and Mead argue the Challenge Index ignores key data on achievement gaps and overall graduation rates (i.e., the number of students who should have graduated). Consequently, schools with achievement gaps as high as 56 percentage points in reading between economically disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers can still make the list. This explains why of the top schools making the Newsweek list, the average graduation rate for African American students was only a mediocre 71 percent. Couple these figures with the fact that AP and IB tests are often taken by a disproportionately small number of students and the list seems even more suspect. Rotherham and Mead recommend creating a more comprehensive metric that includes AYP data for student subgroups or even a panel of professionals to evaluate the rankings.  

 

Jay Mathews, a Washington Post columnist and creator of the Challenge Index, offers a rebuttal to the report. He agrees that the Challenge Index is both narrow and simple—that’s the point. If achievement gap and graduation numbers were considered in the calculations, he contends, few inner city schools would ever make the list. To be sure, fairly measuring high school quality is no easy task. But excluding key indicators of school performance for the sake of simplicity doesn’t serve the “best” interests of readers, schools, or students.

 

This fall lawmakers will begin debate on the Ohio Core Curriculum, an initiative requiring high school students to take more math and science courses to graduate. If the legislation passes, district leaders will not have enough highly qualified teachers to cover the additional course load.

 

They can hardly fill their needs now. In 2004, there were 64 teaching vacancies in math and 60 in science. Teach for America (TFA)—a national teacher recruitment program that enlists young, idealistic college graduates much like the Peace Corps did two generations ago—could help fill the void. Their pool of applicants is up 20 percent, and these are hardly students from marginal schools. One-third of Notre Dame’s math, science, and engineering graduates applied to TFA, as did eight percent of Cal Tech’s class of 2006. By 2010, TFA wants to become the biggest employer of top college graduates in the nation.

 

Perfect timing? Nope. Unfortunately, strict state licensure requirements keep TFA out of our state.

 

Worse, we’re losing talented Ohioans. Since 2002, 196 graduates from some of our best universities have participated in TFA. These Buckeyes, literally some of the state’s best and brightest, are packing their bags to teach not in Columbus, Dayton, or Cleveland, but in high poverty schools in Philadelphia, the South Bronx, and Chicago.

 

How can districts recruit TFA teachers to Ohio? TFA vice president Diane Robinson declared, “If districts want us but laws are preventing us from coming, they need to take it on, or the (state legislators need) to take it on.” So why is Ohio still sitting on the sidelines?

 

“Math, Science Graduates Sign On to Teach,” by Bess Keller, Education Week, June 12, 2006 (subscription required).

 

“Teach for America Recruits Eager But Unwelcome,” by Stephanie Klupinksi, Catalyst Cleveland, Feb/March 2006.

 

“Teach for America Surges in Popularity,” Education with Student News, CNN, June 17, 2006.

According to preliminary test results for the 2005–06 school year, more Ohio students are reaching “proficiency” on state exams than ever before. So schools are doing a better job, right?

 

Wrong. Though state test scores are up, scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the nation’s report card, are flat. Two Education Next editors argue that the discrepancy raises questions about whether Ohio’s test has gotten easier over the past two years. In 2003, the state earned a “C+” based on the gap between state and NAEP averages of proficient students. By 2005, that grade dropped to a “C”; Ohio was one of only six states to have lost ground. 

 

Another study by Kevin Carey of Education Sector looks at how states get away with reporting wildly optimistic data across a range of indicators. Consider Wisconsin, which declares that 99.8 percent of its districts met Average Yearly Progress(AYP) goals for 2004–05. Ohio earned 24^th place (out of 50 states and D.C.) on the report’s “Pangloss Index,” which ranks brazen optimists from top to bottom. While Ohio is not among the worst offenders, these two reports together suggest that the state’s standards might be slipping—and during a time when many state leaders are calling for more rigor (via the Ohio Core Curriculum), not less. Come August, when the state’s school and district report cards become public, parents and school leaders should be pleased by higher scores—but also wary that the gains are not all they seem to be.   

“Keeping an Eye on State Standards: A Race to the Bottom?” by Paul E. Peterson and Frederick M. Hess, Education Next, Summer 2006.

 

Hot Air: How States Inflate Their Educational Progress Under NCLB, by Kevin Carey,

Education Sector, May 2006.

 

“Columbus Improves Its Scores on Tests,” by Jennifer Smith Richards, The Columbus Dispatch, June 10, 2006.

 

“Valley Loses Top, Bottom Spots on Grad Test Results,” by Scott Elliot, The Dayton Daily News, June 10, 2006.

 

Read a full review of Hot Air: How States Inflate Their Educational Progress Under NCLB here.

Many Ohio newspapers are reporting that the state’s new voucher program, EdChoice, which students begin benefiting from this fall, is faring poorly. They point to implementation problems and low interest on the part of students and parents.

 

To be fair, there have been numerous difficulties in implementation. The state education department had to create a new office to administer the program, private schools had to be educated about the program and its potential impact on their school cultures and budgets, and parents, many in the state’s toughest neighborhoods, had to be informed about the program.

 

For all the work, just 2,600 children trapped in Ohio’s lowest performing public schools will take advantage of the vouchers this fall. (Only students in schools rated in “academic emergency” or “academic watch,” the state’s two lowest ratings, for three consecutive years are eligible.) The state has provided funding for up to 14,000 vouchers.

 

But compared with other districts and states sporting similar programs, Ohio is well ahead of the game—and the future looks bright. Thanks to the Ohio General Assembly, the Ohio Department of Education, and nonprofit groups in cities such as Dayton, Columbus, and Cincinnati, 5.5 percent of 46,000 eligible students applied for a voucher. That number far surpasses the 0.7 percent of students in Milwaukee, the 1.7 percent of students in Washington, D.C., and the 0.3 percent of students in Florida who took advantage of voucher scholarship programs the first year they were available. All three of these programs started more slowly than ours, and all three are flourishing today.

 

Critics of the voucher uptake in year one are likely to be the same district school officials and their allies that dismissed charter schools during their first year. It’s worth noting that Ohio’s charter school population exploded from about 2,200 students in 1998 to over 70,000 students in 2005. If the state’s voucher program experiences the same level of growth, one can reasonably expect the 14,000 voucher cap to be reached by the start of the 2008–09 school year, and for there to be pressure from parents to raise this number higher.

 

Far too many Ohio children still face the dim prospect of returning to failing schools this fall. It’s no wonder that on June 12, Speaker Husted announced that a second voucher enrollment period will be offered for families from July 21 to August 4. We know from loads of public opinion data (see Halfway Out the Door) that parents in Ohio want choice, and with the EdChoice program—and plenty of information—we suspect they will seize it.

 

“Viewpoint: New EdChoice Voucher Program a Success,” by Matthew Carr, Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, June 12, 2006.

 

“2^nd School Voucher Sign-up Offered,” by Scott Elliott, The Dayton Daily News, June 13, 2006.

 

 

 

Andrew J. Rotherham and Sara Mead

Education Sector, February, 2006

 

This report takes a hard look at what it means to make Newsweek’s recent list of best high schools in America. Newsweek’s rankings are generated using a fairly simple measure—the Challenge Index, which is determined by dividing the number of Advanced Placement (AP) tests and International Baccalaureate (IB) tests taken at a particular school by the number of graduating seniors. Rotherham and Mead argue the Challenge Index ignores key data on achievement gaps and overall graduation rates (i.e., the number of students who should have graduated). Consequently, schools with achievement gaps as high as 56 percentage points in reading between economically disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers can still make the list. This explains why of the top schools making the Newsweek list, the average graduation rate for African American students was only a mediocre 71 percent. Couple these figures with the fact that AP and IB tests are often taken by a disproportionately small number of students and the list seems even more suspect. Rotherham and Mead recommend creating a more comprehensive metric that includes AYP data for student subgroups or even a panel of professionals to evaluate the rankings.  

 

Jay Mathews, a Washington Post columnist and creator of the Challenge Index, offers a rebuttal to the report. He agrees that the Challenge Index is both narrow and simple—that’s the point. If achievement gap and graduation numbers were considered in the calculations, he contends, few inner city schools would ever make the list. To be sure, fairly measuring high school quality is no easy task. But excluding key indicators of school performance for the sake of simplicity doesn’t serve the “best” interests of readers, schools, or students.