The Education Gadfly Weekly

Last week, Ohio Representatives Robert Cupp and John Patterson unveiled their much-anticipated school funding plan. The plan was developed through informal work groups led by school district officials. Over the next two years, it recommends a hefty $1.1 billion boost in state expenditures relative to maintaining current spending levels. More details should become available when it’s introduced as legislation but the general framework, along with district-by-district state revenue forecasts, are now public.

First, we must commend Representatives Cupp and Patterson for spearheading this important effort. It is a serious attempt to improve the state’s school funding system, and there are several aspects of the plan meriting support. Let’s start with the strengths: 

Funding districts via formula. The Cupp-Patterson plan rightly spotlights the incoherent way in which Ohio distributes state aid. Currently, state funding amounts can be based on: 1) a guarantee—an amount, based on a prior year’s funding, that is more than prescribed by the state funding formula; 2) the actual amount prescribed by the formula; or 3) a cap—an amount less than the formula prescription. (Guarantees give districts with declining enrollment more money than they would otherwise receive; caps do the opposite for fast-growing districts.) Under the Cupp-Patterson plan, the caps go away and the large majority of districts are funded via formula, with a projected 14 percent of districts remaining on a guarantee. While it’s disappointing that the plan doesn’t completely phase-out guarantees, the strong focus on funding districts via formula rather than workarounds is welcome.

Simplification of the formula. The current method of calculating districts’ state aid is a complex formula based on property values and resident wealth. One of its peculiarities is that some districts’ allocations are premised wholly on property values, while others are determined by a mix of income and property wealth. The Cupp-Patterson formula maintains, rightly, a focus on both property and income to compute state obligations. But it also calls for a simpler, more uniform approach to calculating the state obligation—a 60-40 weighting on property values and incomes, respectively, that applies to all districts.

Increased funding for economically disadvantaged students. Currently, the state provides additional funding to districts and charter schools enrolling economically disadvantaged (ED) students. This “add-on” amount is presently set at a base of $272 per pupil, with those enrolling higher percentages receiving well over the base. Cleveland’s school district, for example, received roughly $1,000 per-pupil in ED funding during FY 2018. The Cupp-Patterson plan recommends increasing the base by $150 per pupil, which would enable the state to drive even more aid to schools serving the neediest students. Akin to Governor DeWine’s focus on targeted aid for high-poverty schools, it’s commendable to see this plan also proposing further assistance.

Direct funding of charters and vouchers. The Cupp-Patterson plan recommends moving Ohio to a direct-funding payment method whereby charters and vouchers would be funded directly from the state. This shift, which would happen immediately in FY 2020, would end the contentious “pass through” practice of counting charter and private-school-scholarship students first as district students and then deducting funds designated for their education from the district. Of course, a move to direct funding must be done in a manner that wouldn’t expose charter or voucher programs to a line item veto by an unfriendly governor some day. If care isn’t taken to do that, the move to direct funding should be rejected out-of-hand by legislators.

While tackling the state funding formula itself is a Herculean effort, the Cupp-Patterson plan remains incomplete and concerning in a few critical areas.

Paying for it. As mentioned above, the plan would be expensive to implement over the next two years and it significantly raises the floor in years thereafter. But there has been no indication about where the money would come from to cover the increased costs. Are they thinking about cutting state expenditures in other areas? Raising state sales or income taxes? Casinos or lotteries? Clamping down on tax expenditures? Without an understanding of the shared sacrifices Ohioans will have to make to pay for the plan, it’s impossible to gauge whether the potential benefits of increased K–12 education outlays outweigh the costs. And state policymakers shouldn’t expect today’s sunnier finances to last forever.

Widens charter and voucher funding inequities. Although the Cupp-Patterson plan provides significant boosts in district funding, it’s mum on charter and voucher amounts. This isn’t surprising given the district-heavy composition of their workgroup. Nevertheless, the plan could have at least suggested comparable increases for charter and voucher programs, allowing these schools, which already face significant disparities relative to districts, to keep pace. Without any bump, the inequities between choice programs and districts will only deepen. Overall, in conjunction with proposals that would remove or weaken districts’ obligations to transport students exercising choice, the Cupp-Patterson plan is generally unfriendly to educational choice. It neither ensures that choice students are fairly funded, nor does it fairly treat their parents who also pay taxes to the state and to local districts.

No commitment to accountability. The goal of school funding reform should be higher pupil achievement, so that all students graduate ready for college, career, or military service. Proposals for more education dollars should ideally be paired with strong accountability measures, which are currently under fire in Ohio. Unfortunately, the Cupp-Patterson plan makes no commitment to accountability—including rigorous state assessments, transparent report cards, and consequences for unacceptable results—even as it seeks hundreds of millions more in taxpayer support.

* * *

No school funding proposal is perfect or touches all the bases. There’s much to like about the Cupp-Patterson plan, particularly its focus on creating a well-functioning funding formula for school districts. Kudos to both representatives for their contribution to the debate. Yet tough questions remain, and legislators, advocates, reporters, and the citizens of Ohio shouldn’t be afraid to ask them.

Back in July 2017, the Ohio General Assembly passed legislation permitting students in the class of 2018 to graduate based on weak alternative pathways recommended by the State Board of Education. These options allowed young people to receive diplomas without demonstrating standard academic or career-technical competencies. Rather, students could graduate via easier means such as school attendance, course grades, a senior project, or volunteer hours, among others.

One of the chief concerns we at Fordham raised about offering lower-level graduation pathways is that they would be yet another manifestation of the “soft bigotry of low expectations”—the offensive belief that low-income students or students of color cannot meet the same standards as their peers. If indeed these alternative routes were used primarily by less advantaged groups, it should be cause for grave concern, especially as state legislators mull an extension of the weaker requirements to future classes. Regardless of socioeconomic background, all young men and women deserve an equal opportunity to meet challenging standards, and they all need to be well-prepared for what comes after high school, whether that is college, career, or military service.  

Last December, state authorities released graduation data for the class of 2018. These include the percentage of students in each district who graduated by meeting the original versus alternative pathways. Unfortunately, the data are not reported by subgroup—something that absolutely should be done—so we don’t know with certainty how many low-income students or students of color graduated via the alternatives, either statewide or in each district.

Nevertheless, the data are revealing. The following charts compare districts’ overall demographic data with the percentage of graduates meeting alternative requirements. Our interest is tracking districts that permitted relatively large numbers of students to graduate under less rigorous requirements. Thus, we consider the ratio of students using alternatives to districts’ overall graduation rates, thereby excluding non-graduates from the calculation.[1]

Figure 1 shows that higher-poverty districts generally had more young people graduate via low-level alternatives, suggesting that Ohio’s low-income students likely used these options more frequently than their peers. However, we do see some variation across districts of similar poverty levels. For example, at the 100 percent economically disadvantaged (ED) level,[2] the fraction of districts’ graduates using alternatives ranges from about 10 percent to a staggering 70 percent. These differences indicate that, although higher-poverty districts were more likely to succumb to the lower bar, it wasn’t inevitable.

Figure 1: Relationship between district poverty and graduates receiving alternative diplomas

​

Source: Ohio Department of Education. Note: This chart displays the correlation between districts’ percentage of economically disadvantaged students in all grades K–12 and the percentage of graduates (excluding non-graduates) in the class of 2018 who received diplomas through alternative routes.

Figure 2 looks at whether districts that enroll more students of color, either black or Hispanic, were more likely to allow students to graduate via alternatives. We again see a correlation. Particularly troubling is the high rates of alternative use in districts serving upwards of 50 percent students of color. Among them are urban districts like Cleveland, which graduated 59 percent of its class of 2018 through alternatives; Youngstown at 59 percent; Dayton at 47 percent; Toledo at 46 percent; Trotwood-Madison at 43 percent; and Akron at 42 percent. The state’s largest school district, Columbus City Schools, which enrolls 66 percent students of color, graduated 39 percent of its class of 2018 via low-level alternatives. Notable also is the variation among the nearly all-white districts at the lower left-hand corner. Some districts—likely more economically disadvantaged, as suggested in figure 1—graduated upwards of 30 percent through alternatives, though others had very few students meet requirements in this way.

Figure 2: Relationship between district students of color and graduates receiving alternative diplomas

​

​

Source: Ohio Department of Education. Note: This chart displays the correlation between districts’ percentage of black or Hispanic students in all grades K–12 and the percentage of graduates (excluding non-graduates) in the class of 2018 who received diplomas through alternative routes.

* * *

Some might look at these data and think, “Thank heavens Ohio enacted alternatives; otherwise a whole bunch of low-income and minority students would be roaming the streets without a high school diploma, and without much hope.” Others might think, “It’s the achievement gap, stupid. What else would you expect?”

In our view, those are cynical, even reprehensible, interpretations of these high school graduation data. For starters, it’s important to remember that Ohio’s conventional graduation requirements aren’t unreachable. The end-of-course exam standards, for instance, ask students to achieve at about a tenth-grade level—far short of true, college-ready targets. At the heart of it, however, they assume that young men and women of color, or those from less advantaged families, cannot work hard, accumulate knowledge and skills, and meet the state’s academic or career-technical standards. They assume that our schools, communities, businesses, and other civil institutions are utterly powerless to help young people achieve great things. To put it simply, they assume that “demography is destiny.”

All these presumptions are false. To be sure, many students face significant challenges. But the standards set by the state are not impossible to achieve and one can point to any number of people who overcame barriers to reach them, often with the support of caring adults and educators who believed in them. We know of first-rate, high-poverty schools right here in Ohio that are not only getting students to the high-school finish line but also fully equipping them for success in what comes next.

But instead of believing in students and the power of a great education, how many students were routed last year into an “alternative” program and told by adults to stop trying to meet conventional state requirements? What message does that send, especially for young people of color or from poorer families? What opportunities for career advancement were lost when schools pulled the plug on their work towards meeting academic or career-technical goals?

In a spot-on comment, state superintendent Paolo DeMaria has said: “My mission is to keep pushing the system to break those correlations because I believe that poor children can learn to the levels of other students.” As lawmakers mull over yet another state board proposal that would create lower standards for the classes of 2021 and beyond, they should ask if it matches their beliefs about whether all students can learn. With any hope, their actions will affirm that, yes, every Ohio student is fully capable of meeting state standards. All students deserve the benefit of high expectations along with the time and support needed to reach them. Baking weak alternatives into graduation requirements, just so poor students and students of color can receive diplomas, is the soft bigotry of low expectations, and they deserve much better from our state leaders.

At their March meeting, the State Board of Education voted to send its proposal for a new set of high school graduation requirements to the Ohio General Assembly for consideration. The board’s original proposal was unveiled last fall, but the final version sent to legislators is slightly different. For instance, the latest version includes assurances that the board will establish “quality-control mechanisms” for non-standardized assessments. These were added because members of Ohio’s business community—who were invited to share their thoughts on the proposal thanks to a mandate handed down by the legislature—expressed serious concerns about the rigor of the board’s proposal.

Business leaders are right to worry. In fact, it should worry quality and equity advocates of all backgrounds that this proposal has been sent to legislators. Even with bureaucratic additions put in place to address business leaders’ concerns, the state board’s proposal has some serious flaws regarding comparability, reliability, and objectivity. The sheer number of options available to students puts an enormous burden on teachers and schools. And without a far better data collection system, this plan will be extremely difficult to implement well.

Thankfully, the board’s proposal isn’t the only one out there. Ohio Excels, a non-profit coalition of business leaders dedicated to improving education in Ohio, recently released its own graduation proposal. It focuses on four key principles: early identification of students who are at risk of not graduating on time; meaningful and research-based supports, interventions, and resources for students and teachers; consistent and externally-verified measurements; and clear timelines and better data collection.

Under the Ohio Excels proposal, students would select one of four pathways to graduate:

Option 1: Ohio state tests

To complete this pathway, students must do two things: Earn eighteen out of thirty-five points on seven end-of-course (EOC) exams and achieve proficiency on at least one English and one math test. Although the state’s original pathways allowed students to earn eighteen EOC points and graduate, requiring proficiency on at least one English and one math test is new; under the original framework, it was mathematically possible for a student to fall short of proficiency on all four math and English EOCs and still earn enough points to graduate. Requiring proficiency is a high expectation, but it’s also an important one: Too many students are forced to take remedial courses when they get to college, and too many employers are struggling to find qualified candidates to fill open jobs. If the state fails to ensure that students are competent in English and math, these numbers will continue to rise.

Option 2: College and career readiness tests

Students can graduate based on college and career readiness by completing one of the following:

• Earn remediation-free scores in math and English on the ACT or SAT

• Earn three or more College Credit Plus credits at any time during high school in core subjects

• Earn credit for an Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) course and earn an AP exam score of three or higher or an IB exam score of four or higher at any time during high school

• Earn a WorkKeys exam score of four on each of three test sections

These criteria should look familiar, as they include the ACT/SAT pathway in the state’s “original” three graduation pathways, along with the more rigorous options included in the alternatives for the classes of 2018–20, such as AP and dual enrollment. The only major difference is that the score needed for each section of the WorkKeys exam has been raised from three to four.

Option 3: Career experience and technical competency

This pathway is designed with career-technical education (CTE) students in mind. The requirements are a little more complicated than the others. Students must complete one foundational demonstration and one additional demonstration, which can be either a foundational or a supporting one. The options include:

• Foundational Demonstration: Earn a total score of proficient or better on career-technical exams (called WebXam in Ohio) in at least four courses in a single career pathway

• Foundational Demonstration: Earn an industry-recognized credential or credentials that equal twelve points

• Foundational Demonstration: Complete a pre-apprenticeship or earn acceptance into an apprenticeship program in the student’s career field

• Supporting Demonstration: Complete a workplace experience totaling 250 hours with evidence of positive evaluations

• Supporting Demonstration: Earn an OhioMeansJobs Readiness Seal

Some of these options appear in the state board’s updated proposal. But the structure of the requirement recommended by Ohio Excels makes it more rigorous and more likely to produce prepared graduates. For example, the state board’s proposal allows students to graduate by scoring proficient on WebXam tests that measure math and reading knowledge. But the WebXam system was designed specifically for CTE programs. The assessments are aligned to Ohio’s career-field technical content standards and are meant to cover material from CTE courses in specific career fields and pathways. That’s why, unlike the state board, Ohio Excels recognizes the link between WebXams and career pathways. It also raises the bar so that students must be proficient in multiple courses.

Option 4: Military readiness

The state board proposal allows students to satisfy English and math graduation requirements by using ASVAB verbal and math skills tests. That’s a good concept since the exams are a determining factor for whether someone can serve in the military. However, the state board’s proposal doesn’t put any parameters at all around ASVAB use. The Ohio Excels proposal, on the other hand, requires that students earn a score that would allow them to enter any service branch. This score is set by a third party—the military—and not the state, offering a critical independent verification of rigor. And importantly, the proposal ensures that students who use this pathway to graduate actually intend to serve in the military; to graduate, students must earn a qualifying score on the ASVAB and enter into a contract to enlist.

***

The graduation pathways proposed by Ohio Excels are far superior to what’s been proposed by the state board. Not only are they objective, comparable, and reliable, they require students to demonstrate academic mastery in ways that can be independently verified. The fact that these pathways have been proposed by leaders in Ohio’s business community should not be ignored. These are the same leaders who are looking to hire Ohio graduates, and they have an interest in making sure that students are well-prepared. The General Assembly would be wise to consider their ideas.

One of the talking points in the never-ending debate over what Ohio students should have to achieve to graduate centers on personalization. The Ohio Department of Education even released a statement last fall saying that “schools will have the flexibility to support their students’ passions” under the state board’s recommended graduation requirements. But, tempting as it may be, the goal of personalization shouldn’t be accomplished by undermining the assessment system. That fails the equity test that asserts that all students, no matter their interests or backgrounds, need to exit high school with the competencies necessary for adult success.

Still, within certain confines, allowing high school students to tailor their education to individual needs and interests is a worthy goal. What can be done to allow for more customization? The answer lies not in undoing assessments, but rather in state course requirements. Though they haven’t been subject to much debate, slimming them down would create more opportunities for young people to customize their education in ways that don’t compromise standards.

Current course requirements

To graduate high school, state law requires students to earn at least twenty course credits, a.k.a. “units,” which are defined as 120 hours of instruction—essentially, a year-long course.[1] Among these credits, students must complete four credits in both English and math; three credits in both science and social studies; five electives chosen from a variety of areas; and one-half credit in both health and physical education.[2] Save for various exceptions, statute also prescribes specific courses in most content-areas.[3] For example, within social studies, students must take 0.5 credits of both U.S. history and U.S. government, and starting with the class of 2021, 0.5 credits of world history and civilizations. State law also requires instruction in economics and financial literacy in the other social studies courses, though no “unit” requirement is given for these topics.

That’s a mouthful. So let’s see how these requirements play out in a student schedule. The table below presents a conventional seven-period day, assuming that an eighth period is used for lunch or study hall. For the sake of illustration, this hypothetical student is interested in a technical career and wants to dive deep into courses in the IT field. He also loves playing in the school orchestra and, during his senior year, hears about a terrific work-based learning opportunity with a local employer.

Table 1 shows what his schedule might look like. You’ll notice that there isn’t much room to go beyond the state-required courses, especially given the work-based learning opportunity. He also faces some tough choices. For instance, should he sacrifice a fourth year of Spanish—perhaps working towards fluency—or take another IT course such as computer programming? And what to do about orchestra?

Table 1: An illustration of a student schedule with current state-required courses highlighted

* Indicates a state end-of-course exam associated with the course. † Indicates a course is used to meet the state’s elective requirement.

A scaled back version of course requirements

Now let’s see what this student’s schedule might look like under leaner requirements. Under this framework, the state would only require the following: four credits of English, three credits of math, and two credits each of social studies and science. This would allow for the type of schedule displayed in table 2. By carefully removing a few state-required courses, totaling four credits, the course-taking possibilities open considerably. Our hypothetical student now has room for two additional career-oriented courses—in IT, perhaps, or another field that piques his interest—and he doesn’t have to sacrifice orchestra in his senior year.

Table 2: An illustration of a student schedule with proposed state-required courses highlighted

Thinking about benefits and costs

If lawmakers pared down state-required courses, it would leave more time for high school students to pursue what interests them. This could benefit young people who might be more inspired to learn in courses that have more purpose and relevance to them. More specialized coursework could also solidify students’ math and literacy skills when they’re applied in other settings. It might also help to curb dropout rates. Last, while the example above focuses on a career-technical student, high achievers could also benefit from the enhanced flexibility. For instance, one could imagine an exceptionally gifted writer who gains little from the third state-required science course and would benefit more by loading up on literature and humanities courses. And though it wouldn’t require a statutory change, another possible way to open up the schedules of high achievers is for schools to more strongly encourage them to take required courses while in middle school.

But concerns may also be raised. Students could use these newfound flexibilities in ways that don’t ensure a solid foundation in core academic areas. But that risk is ameliorated so long as Ohio maintains a robust assessment system that holds students accountable for meeting targets on end-of-course exams. In a somewhat similar vein, some analysts have suggested that states match requirements with the coursework expectations of flagship state universities. Shifting to a more bare-bones approach is not likely to guarantee such alignment. But a few things should be noted. First, Ohio’s current requirements don’t match every college’s expectations. For example, Ohio State University seeks two years of foreign language, and no such requirement exists for graduation. Second, while high school graduation standards should indeed be aligned to college and career readiness, they need not match those of top universities that a relatively small proportion of students attend. Third, any change in state minimum course requirements should continue to ensure that any student meeting them can gain admission into a two-year or technical college. Fourth, Ohio should maintain more stringent English and math course requirements—and assessments, too—so that students attending any type of college don’t end up in remediation.

* * *

Every student should exit high school competent in English, math, and citizenship. For those pursuing jobs right after high school, they also need to leave with technical skills that allow them to advance in their careers. Yet how students achieve these skills should be less prescriptive, allowing for more customization and flexibility. The quest for more personalization is commendable. We just need to start looking for those opportunities in the right places.

[1] State law provides for a competency-based approach to awarding credits, rather than a “seat time” determination.

[2] The half-credit physical education requirement is oddly defined as 120 hours in state law. Provided local board approval, students can meet this requirement via athletics, marching band, or JROTC.

[3] Examples of exceptions include an option for career-tech students to forgo Algebra II and take another math course. Based on parental consent, students in the classes of 2014–19 may meet alternative course requirements—though in practice, less than 1 percent of graduates use this option.

In late 2018, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center published its annual data on national college completion rates. It looks at the six-year cohort completion rate of degree-seeking students entering two-year or four-year college programs for the first time in the fall of 2012, which comprised 2,269,618 individuals attending at an intensity of half-time or higher.

They find that 58 percent of starting students had completed at least one degree or credential in that time. Students who started at four-year institutions were almost twice as likely to complete as students who started at two-year institutions. Asian students, both men and women, had the highest completion rates, followed by white, Hispanic, and black students. Women had higher completion rates than men across the board. Most disappointingly, black men had the lowest completion rate (36 percent) and the highest stop-out rates (those who had earned no degree or certificate, and had no enrollment activity during the final year of the study window), with nearly half stopping out by the end of the period.

A companion piece published in March breaks down the data state by state and gives us an Ohio snapshot. The Buckeye State’s fall 2012 cohort included 91,418 students, and just over 51 percent of them were exclusively full-time scholars throughout their college careers, however long they lasted. It was about evenly split between men and women, with women having a slight edge in enrollments, mirroring the national cohort. Eighty percent of Ohio college enrollees were twenty years old or younger—“traditional age” students—slightly above the national rate of 78 percent. Adult learners (over the age of twenty-four) comprised 12 percent and delayed entry students (between twenty and twenty-four years old) were 8 percent in Ohio.

Of the Ohio cohort, the largest proportion of students (54 percent) were enrolled at four-year public institutions, followed four-year private nonprofit institutions (23 percent) and two-year public institutions (23 percent). Unfortunately, Ohio was one of just a few states where race and ethnicity breakdowns were not included in completion rates.

And how did Buckeye collegians fare? Just as in the national cohort, students starting at Ohio’s four-year private institutions were most likely to complete, with 73 percent of them earning degrees at some point in the six-year study period. That compares with 64 percent of students staring at four-year public institutions and a worrisome 33 percent of students starting at two-year public institutions, well below the national rate of 39 percent. Additionally, the stop-out rate for Ohio students starting at two-year public institutions was more than double the rate for students staring at four-year institutions. They also exhibited minimal mobility during the study period, with between 80 and 90 percent finishing at the same institution at which they started, depending on type of institution. A mere 4 percent of students who started at a two-year institution subsequently transferred to a four-year institution to complete their first degree.

When it comes to college completion, Ohio is a trend-follower, not a trend-setter, it seems. The data are interesting as far as they go, but how those numbers play into important conversations about equity, quality, access, and the value of postsecondary education is still unclear. And if Ohio does want to become a trend-setter, as it purports, publishing disaggregated data and improving completion rates at community colleges and transfers to four-year institutions would be great places to start.

SOURCE: Doug Shapiro, et al, “Completing College: A State-Level View of Student Completion Rates (Signature Report No. 16a),” National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (March 2019).

In the U.S. we call it “math phobia”; in the U.K. they call it “maths anxiety.” Either way you dub it, a negative emotional reaction to mathematics, which can manifest as a fear of or aversion to doing math-related work, is a real threat to mathematical competency. A new summary of research from the University of Cambridge adds a huge amount of detail to the picture of what causes math phobia in young people and what if anything can be done to mitigate its effects.

A 2014 report from the British organization National Numeracy showed that, while 57 percent of U.K. adults were functionally literate, just 22 percent reached the level of functionally numerate. Even worse, that rate was sinking fast. Theorizing that math anxiety could be a contributing factor, a team of researchers from Cambridge set out to examine the problem through a series of studies.

The first step: Create a survey instrument that measures math anxiety (MA) in young people, as distinct from wider test anxiety and general anxiety. This they did using an existing instrument originally geared to American adults, adjusted for U.K. educational terminology and substituting developmentally appropriate mathematical operations in the questionnaire. It was then rigorously field-tested for reliability and validity.

The next step: Use the new survey instrument, tests of math and reading ability, and interviews to determine the prevalence of math anxiety among young people. The Cambridge team studied 1,757 students from a mix of urban and rural schools throughout South East England. The sample consisted of 830 primary school students (eight and nine year olds) and 927 secondary school students (twelve and thirteen year olds). Each group of children was about evenly split between girls and boys.

The researchers found that 11 percent of the sample exhibited high MA, but they also noted that MA, regardless of intensity level, was moderately negatively correlated with mathematics performance across the entire sample. In fact, a large majority of students in this sample with high MA had average or above average math performance, a surprising result that hinted at a more complex interplay between math anxiety and math performance than had been previously theorized.

A subsequent study with a different group of 1,720 primary and secondary students delved further into that interplay, with a focus on anxiety profiles, age, and gender differences. Students were tested to determine levels of general anxiety, test anxiety, and math anxiety. Based on all these measures, students were then grouped into four “profiles” along a continuum of low to high anxiety.

Younger students exhibited less anxiety overall than older students and tended to have more similar anxiety scores across the different measures, meaning that levels of general anxiety and academic anxiety were similar for a given student. Far more of the older students evidenced a high-anxiety profile, but were more likely to have one specific area of anxiety in which they rated more highly than the other areas. Girls were more likely to exhibit across-the-board anxiety, while boys were more likely to be highest in one specific area. Consistent with the other studies, MA correlated moderately negatively with math test performance. However, the other two areas measured within the anxiety profile appeared to interact with the correlation in unexpected ways. Age and gender appeared to influence a student’s anxiety profile, leading researchers to conclude that interventions to successfully mitigate MA would need to take into account a host of factors previously not considered.

Finally, the Cambridge team conducted a qualitative study into the experiences and origins of math anxiety. They studied a small group of 120 primary and secondary students with varying levels of MA and 200 students without any signs of it. Interview questions covered a wide range of previous experiences with mathematics, and students also kept a diary documenting any memorable mathematics experiences that occurred over the course of the study period.

Differences in classroom experiences between students with and without MA fell into predicable patterns—with anxious students reporting high levels of negative feeling toward math and four times as many negative experiences. Division problems led the list of most problematic areas for students with high MA (also a source of concern for students without it), followed by fractions, decimals, and percentages. As to the origins of MA, a majority of students currently with high MA recalled that their anxiety grew when they perceived their assignments getting harder or when lowered school marks gave them “evidence” that the work was getting harder. However, a variety of other factors emerged near the top. These include confusion generated by students being taught by multiple teachers, fear of being mocked by peers, and moving up in class level when not feeling “ready” for what they perceived to be harder work. It is important to note that all of the students in the study had more or less the same experience with math—progression, specific assignments, and teachers—in their respective primary and secondary school careers.

It is, the researchers assert, each student’s experience that seems to matter. In that vein, the Cambridge team recommends several human-centric mitigation efforts. To wit, teachers and parents need to be aware that their own attitudes toward math might influence a child’s math anxiety and that gender stereotypes about mathematics suitability and ability must be avoided. Peers, too, should understand that the work itself is the most important part of math class, not comparisons between individuals. Though not a specific recommendation of the researchers, it stands to reason in the face of all this evidence that passing students along from math class to math class without mastery of concepts and skills—especially at the youngest ages—is a recipe for disaster.

SOURCE: Emma Carey, et. al., “Understanding Mathematics Anxiety: Investigating the experiences of UK primary and secondary school students,” Centre for Neuroscience in Education, University of Cambridge (March 2019).

Editor’s Note: Back in September 2018, awaiting the election of our next governor, we at the Fordham Institute began developing a set of policy proposals that we believe can lead to increased achievement and greater opportunities for Ohio students. This is one of those policy proposals.

With Mike DeWine sworn in as Ohio’s 70th governor, and with his administration now well underway, we are proud to roll out the full set of our education policy proposals. You can download the full document, titled Fulfilling the Readiness Promise: Twenty-five education policy ideas for Ohio, at this link, or you can access the individual policy proposals from the links provided here.

Proposal: Phase out caps and guarantees and instead transition all districts to funding based on the formula set in statute.

Background: The state funding formula is intended to impartially and efficiently allocate state aid to districts with the greatest needs—whether that is expanding student populations, a greater number of students with special needs, or less capacity to raise funds through local taxes. Yet two policies—caps and guarantees—continue to undermine and distort the funding formula. Caps place an arbitrary limit on how much districts’ state funding can increase from year to year, even as the formula prescribes such increases. Current policy generally limits state funding increases to 3 percent versus the prior year (with exceptions that can lift the cap to 6 percent). Guarantees are the reverse: they shield districts from losing state funding, even when the formula dictates lesser amounts. Under current policy for FY 2018 and 2019, Ohio guarantees districts at least the same amount of state aid as received in FY 2017—with certain exceptions in which they can experience modest reductions. As table 2 shows, caps and guarantees create a fractured system in which some districts receive less than what the formula prescribes (that is, they suffer from the cap); others receive the exact formula stipulation; and still others receive more than prescribed (that is, they get a windfall from the guarantee). Over the past three years, caps have withheld roughly $500 million per year in state funds, while guarantees provide funds outside of the formula in amounts of about $100 to $200 million per year.

Table 2: Ohio’s funding caps and guarantees, FY 2016–18

​

Source: ODE, Traditional School Districts Funding (FY 2016, Final #4 Payment File; FY 2017, Final #3 Payment File; FY 2018, April #1 Payment File).

Proposal rationale: Caps and guarantees undermine the state’s own funding formula, create an incoherent funding system that treats districts differently, add complexity, and render state funding amounts less predictable for districts, as these policies are a recurrent part of the budget debate. Because caps and guarantees distort districts’ funding amounts, lawmakers have only a hazy picture of how the funding formula actually allocates state aid, impeding adjustments that may improve its functionality. Most troubling, however, is that the continuing use of these policies fails to adhere to principles of student-centered funding: capped districts are denied additional aid, even as they serve more pupils (or more harder-to-serve children), while guaranteed districts are provided dollars to educate students no longer in their schools—”phantom students.”

Cost: To phase out caps, Ohio should allocate sufficient funds, $100 to $150 million per year, to remove them over the next four to six years. Eliminating guarantees would save the state money, but doing so in one swoop would generate opposition from affected districts. Gradually moving districts off the guarantee in a predictable way would allow the state to offset some of the costs of lifting the cap, while also providing districts on the guarantee time to adjust.

Resources: For discussion on cap and guarantee policies, see A Formula That Works: Five Ways to Strengthen School Funding in Ohio, a 2017 report written by Bellwether Education Partners’ Jennifer Schiess and colleagues and published by the Fordham Institute. For more on the problems of guarantee funding, see Jon Fullerton and Marguerite Roza’s article “Funding Phantom Students,” published in Education Next (2013). For a local view on these policies, see Thomas Gallick’s article “The Big Short: Districts Lament Funding Cap,” published in This Week Community News (2018). And for a description of current cap-and-guarantee policies, see Ohio Legislative Service Commission’s “Greenbook: Analysis of Enacted Budget” (2017).

Editor’s Note: Back in September 2018, awaiting the election of our next governor, we at the Fordham Institute began developing a set of policy proposals that we believe can lead to increased achievement and greater opportunities for Ohio students. This is one of those policy proposals.

With Mike DeWine sworn in as Ohio’s 70th governor, and with his administration now well underway, we are proud to roll out the full set of our education policy proposals. You can download the full document, titled Fulfilling the Readiness Promise: Twenty-five education policy ideas for Ohio, at this link, or you can access the individual policy proposals from the links provided here.

Proposal: Offer less-advantaged families scholarship opportunities that offset the tuition charged by many preschool providers. Low-income families not covered by federal Head Start or the state’s early-childhood grants would be eligible for such scholarships, as well as (we recommend) families with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level. The size of early-learning scholarships should be set via a sliding scale that provides higher amounts to the neediest families and, of course, adjusted according to whether parents are seeking part- or full-time preschool for their little ones. All types of preschools, including district, charter, or private providers, should be allowed to participate in the scholarship program.

Background: Research indicates that high-quality preschool education can improve children’s readiness to learn when they enter Kindergarten. Yet statewide data from the Fall 2016 Kindergarten Readiness Assessment show that just two in five Ohio children arrive in Kindergarten truly ready to learn. Although Ohio provides various preschool and childcare supports, these are generally confined to low-income or special-needs children. For instance, the federally funded Head Start program furnishes preschool for about 30,000 kids whose family incomes are at or below the federal poverty line (about $25,000 for a family of four). Ohio’s own state-funded Early Childhood Education Grant (ECEG) provides funding for about 15,000 preschoolers whose parents’ incomes are at or below 200 percent of the poverty line. Despite these efforts, thousands of children continue to miss out on preschool, as their families cannot cover the out-of-pocket expenses. According to recent estimates from Montgomery County, about 35 percent of children don’t attend any preschool, public or private; as the figure below suggests, many of them come from low- to middle-income households.

Figure 1: Parents in Montgomery County (Dayton area) saying they “couldn’t afford” preschool, by household income

​

Source: Learn to Earn Dayton, A Montgomery County Preschool Promise (2015): p. 12

Proposal rationale: By opening more pre-K opportunities through tuition assistance, Ohio would enable more children to enter Kindergarten ready to learn. Our proposal would offer families opportunities to choose among providers and would target resources to needier families instead of subsidizing those who can (and, in many cases, do already) afford preschool tuition, as a universal, publicly funded pre-K program tends to do.

Cost: This proposal would require additional state appropriations, though the cost would depend on scholarship amounts, eligibility rules, and take-up rates. To ease the fiscal impact, the state could gradually implement the program, starting with four-year-olds at the lowest income levels and then expanding eligibility to include three-year-olds and some less impoverished families. Ohio should also consider consolidating funding streams (including ECEG and state childcare programs) to create a unified scholarship-based preschool program that is simpler to administer and easier for families to understand. Though the state would bear additional expenditures in the short run, studies indicate that high-quality pre-K generates long-term benefits that outweigh the immediate costs.

Resources: For a broad overview of Ohio’s various early-learning programs, see the Joint Education Oversight Committee’s “Early Learning and Development Report” (2018). The Dayton-area data cited are from Learn to Earn Dayton’s 2015 report A Montgomery County Preschool Promise: Recommendations for Offering Affordable, High Quality Preschool to All. For a cost-benefit analysis of pre-K, see Lynn A. Karoly and Annamarie Whitaker’s report, Informing Investments in Preschool Quality and Access in Cincinnati, published by the RAND Corporation (2016). For research showing the benefits of high-quality pre-K opportunities, particularly when combined with strong elementary schools, see the Mathematica Policy Research report Pre-Kindergarten Impacts Over Time: An Analysis of KIPP Charter Schools by Virginia Knechtel and colleagues (2017).