It is no surprise that the Latino population in the United States is growing rapidly. Between 2000-2010 the national Latino population increased by 15.2 million people, more than half of the overall population growth during that time period.
It is no surprise that the Latino population in the United States is growing rapidly. Between 2000-2010 the national Latino population increased by 15.2 million people, more than half of the overall population growth during that time period. The Latino community is also young on average. There are 17.1 million Latinos under the age of 17, and they comprise 22 percent (one in five) of all prek-12 students currently enrolled in America’s public schools. This rise in population combined with the youthfulness of the Latino population makes them a vital component to our future success as a nation. However, educational statistics among the Latino population are troubling: Latinos have low participation in early childhood education programs; subpar graduation rates; and less than 15 percent of them go on to receive their bachelor’s degree.
A recent report by the Department of Education highlights the state of education in the Latino community, drawing attention to areas that must improve:
Ohio is also experiencing Latino population growth, and educational underperformance of this subgroup. According to the recent 2010 Census data the Latino population in Ohio increased by 63 percent since 2010, and they now represent 3.4 percent of Ohio’s total population. Academic performance for Latino students in Ohio is also cause for concern. Graduation rates for Latino students are 61.4 percent, compared to 88.6 percent for white students. Proficiency rates are also subpar for K-12 Latino students, with only 63.4 of third grade students proficient in reading. As the Latino population continues to grow nationally and in Ohio, policy makers and educators must find ways to improve their educational attainment.
Winning
the Future: Improving Education for the Latino Community
Department of Education
April 2011
In state capitals across the nation, policy makers and education reformers are calling for more rigorous teacher evaluation systems. In its latest report, Passing Muster: Evaluating Teacher Evaluation Systems, the Brookings Institution describes a mathematical framework for assessing the effectiveness of evaluation systems. The report accompanies and explains the reasoning behind an evaluation system effectiveness calculator developed by the Institution. The calculator assesses teacher evaluation systems that use student value-added data, based on five criteria:
Many states and districts do not favor a universal teacher evaluation system and would prefer to develop their own systems instead. The report proposes that this calculator be used to set standards for such localized systems, thereby creating a national standard by which to judge teacher evaluation systems but not mandating a national system. The report suggests that this might be accomplished by including the calculator or a similar tool in a reauthorization of ESEA.
The Passing Muster model may prove problematic in some ways, as some critics contend, but the report raises important issues regarding the creation and implementation of effective teacher evaluation systems. In Ohio, recent amendments to HB 153 (Governor Kasich’s budget bill) would require districts to use student value-added data as at least 50 percent of teacher evaluations and to lay off teachers in order of evaluation rating, not seniority. These reforms are certainly a much-needed improvement, but implementation will be the deciding factor in whether or not the new evaluation systems will actually be effective.
Passing Muster: Evaluating Teacher
Evaluation Systems
Steven Glazerman, et
al.
Brookings Institution
April 2011
Steve Farkas is veteran public opinion researcher, co-founder of the FDR Group, and author of the Fordham Institute’s recent report, Yearning to Break Free: Ohio Superintendents Speak. The following was written in response to a review of the report by the Think Tank Review Project at the National Education Policy Center.
The FDR Group’s recent survey of Ohio’s school district superintendents, Yearning to Break Free (online here), conducted on behalf of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, found these local education leaders eager to overhaul the collective bargaining process and to increase their authority over staff and money. “Give us autonomy,” they said, “and hold us accountable for getting results.” Easy to understand, right? Well, two unhappy University of Houston professors reviewing the study for the National Education Policy Center’s “Think Tank Review Project” had a lot of trouble comprehending it.
From the get-go in their review, the professors failed to realize that the study was giving voice to the opinions of these school leaders – not our opinions as researchers or even Fordham’s but those of Ohio superintendents. The professors say, “the authors of the study recommend [emphasis added] that ‘two promising ways to save districts money are to give superintendents greater control over combined state revenue streams and to mandate a statewide health insurance plan…’” But the report itself stated “Ohio’s superintendents think [emphasis added] two promising ways…” We (neither the FDR Group nor Fordham) didn’t recommend anything. Yearning to Break Free is a study of perceptions so the whole report is filled with such modifiers as “superintendents believe, say, think.” It’s hard to see how the professors missed that.
The professors had other troubles. They didn’t understand why we would force superintendents to choose between what they called “inappropriate dichotomies.” They balked when we asked superintendents what would be more likely to lead to improved student achievement: “significant expansion of management authority over staff” or “significant increases in school funding.” But the dichotomy is valid and interesting – and it pushes respondents to think harder and prioritize. (By the way, the result was 50 percent to 44 percent.) I’ve got a really unrealistic question for the professors: If you had to choose, would you rather have lunch with President Obama or Lady Gaga? See, even a far-fetched dichotomous question can tell you something interesting about your preferences.
I have my own complaints about what the professors say. The professors said the study aggregates responses for superintendents and charter leaders. That’s just plain wrong – it doesn’t. They talk about a poor response rate when the response rate was very high for a study of this type – 40 percent. Real-world survey researchers – myself included – dream of getting such high response rates on a regular basis. The professors say we don’t know how the superintendents who didn’t answer the survey differ from the people who did. Well, by definition that’s almost always the case. We made extraordinary efforts to get non-respondents to take the survey (see the appendix of the report for more on those efforts). That’s how we got such a high response rate.
Perhaps most amazing to me: in the end, after all the mistruths and mistaken comprehensions, the professors agree that the survey correctly captures the attitudes of superintendents! They say: “some aspects of the report are not surprising…it is entirely predictable that superintendents would like to have greater control over both teachers’ salaries and state regulations.” Oh. So this survey that they claim is badly designed, badly worded, not representative, biased, and narrow somehow got the right answer? Now that is interesting.
This report from the Center on Education Policy (CEP) is an update to previous research that tracked the number of schools that had not achieved Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as outlined in NCLB. Achieving AYP has proved increasingly difficult as many states require schools to meet progressively higher standards each year leading up to 2014, the year by which NCLB requires that 100 percent of students in every state reach proficiency on state assessments. The CEP has been tracking state and national AYP levels annually since 2005, and this report provides estimates for 2010 data. The previous four years of AYP data come from State Consolidated Performance Reports submitted to the Department of Education. These reports are not yet available for 2010, but CEP created an estimate for 2010 numbers: The number of schools not reaching AYP has risen to 38 percent nationally, the highest percentage since CEP began tracking this data.
Over the last five years, the number of schools not reaching AYP has steadily increased, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently warned that in 2011 the number of schools labeled “failing” by NCLB may skyrocket to 82 percent. In order to meet the “100 percent proficient by 2014” goal, many states have ratcheted up their achievement targets each year. Schools have found it difficult to keep pace, and even many high-performing schools with a few below-proficient students are receiving NCLB’s “failing” label.
In Ohio, CEP estimated that 39 percent of schools did not make AYP in 2010. However, the current AYP rating system provides limited (at best) information on a school’s performance and is in dramatic need of reform. Fordham’s Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael Petrilli provide their own recommendations in their recent ESEA Briefing Book, advocating that AYP be eliminated, while allowing states to design transparent, data-based information systems for schools. With ESEA up for reauthorization this year, Congress has the opportunity to create a metric that replaces AYP and provides a better representation of whether or not a given school is performing adequately.
Update with 2009-10 Data and Five-year Trends: How Many Schools Have Not Made Adequate
Yearly Progress?
Center on Education Policy
Alexandra Usher, Nancy Kober, and Diane Stark Rentner
April 2011
The KIPP Foundation recently released a study of college completion rates of early KIPP students and the results are both good and bad. The good news is that 33 percent of KIPP students that completed eighth grade 10 or more years ago have gone on to graduate from a four-year college. This may strike readers as low, but in context it illustrates a remarkable achievement: Only 30.6 percent of Americans ages 25-29 have a four year degree as do only 8 percent of such students from low-income families. Thus, KIPPsters are four times more likely to complete college than their peers from similar demographics. The bad news is that KIPP falls dramatically short of its goal that 75 percent of its students earn a four-year degree, and readily admits that the goal has been harder to achieve than anticipated. The report acknowledges that the number of kids these findings apply to is small: they come from the first two KIPP schools that were opened in Houston and New York, the only ones open long enough to have college graduates. (The Fordham Foundation is the authorizer of KIPP Journey Academy in Columbus, which was not included in this report.)
The report sets forth several action steps that KIPP will take to try to meet their 75 percent goal, including a continued focus on academics and character education; evolving their focus from just middle schools to pre-K through 12 broadly; and improving college support to KIPP graduates (i.e., helping kids find a college that is the right fit, offering social and academic support to students during their college years, etc).
Perhaps the biggest lesson to draw from this report is that much of KIPP’s success lies in the fact that it is self-reflective, transparent, and holds high expectations internally. As many know, KIPP schools serve a high percentage of minority and low-income students, so considering that only 8 percent of these kids would otherwise graduate from a four year college, KIPP’s 33 percent college completion rate is impressive. It’s likewise impressive that 33 percent is unacceptable for KIPP, despite the fact that KIPP has much to celebrate -- recent data show that 89 percent of kids who completed a KIPP middle school went on to enroll in college, compared with 62 percent of students nationally and 41 percent of low-income students. Kudos to the KIPP Foundation for its honest self-critique and for its position that simply doing better than the status quo is not good enough.
The Promise
of College Completion: KIPP’s Early Successes and Challenges
KIPP Foundation
April 2011
It is no surprise that the Latino population in the United States is growing rapidly. Between 2000-2010 the national Latino population increased by 15.2 million people, more than half of the overall population growth during that time period. The Latino community is also young on average. There are 17.1 million Latinos under the age of 17, and they comprise 22 percent (one in five) of all prek-12 students currently enrolled in America’s public schools. This rise in population combined with the youthfulness of the Latino population makes them a vital component to our future success as a nation. However, educational statistics among the Latino population are troubling: Latinos have low participation in early childhood education programs; subpar graduation rates; and less than 15 percent of them go on to receive their bachelor’s degree.
A recent report by the Department of Education highlights the state of education in the Latino community, drawing attention to areas that must improve:
Ohio is also experiencing Latino population growth, and educational underperformance of this subgroup. According to the recent 2010 Census data the Latino population in Ohio increased by 63 percent since 2010, and they now represent 3.4 percent of Ohio’s total population. Academic performance for Latino students in Ohio is also cause for concern. Graduation rates for Latino students are 61.4 percent, compared to 88.6 percent for white students. Proficiency rates are also subpar for K-12 Latino students, with only 63.4 of third grade students proficient in reading. As the Latino population continues to grow nationally and in Ohio, policy makers and educators must find ways to improve their educational attainment.
Winning
the Future: Improving Education for the Latino Community
Department of Education
April 2011
In state capitals across the nation, policy makers and education reformers are calling for more rigorous teacher evaluation systems. In its latest report, Passing Muster: Evaluating Teacher Evaluation Systems, the Brookings Institution describes a mathematical framework for assessing the effectiveness of evaluation systems. The report accompanies and explains the reasoning behind an evaluation system effectiveness calculator developed by the Institution. The calculator assesses teacher evaluation systems that use student value-added data, based on five criteria:
Many states and districts do not favor a universal teacher evaluation system and would prefer to develop their own systems instead. The report proposes that this calculator be used to set standards for such localized systems, thereby creating a national standard by which to judge teacher evaluation systems but not mandating a national system. The report suggests that this might be accomplished by including the calculator or a similar tool in a reauthorization of ESEA.
The Passing Muster model may prove problematic in some ways, as some critics contend, but the report raises important issues regarding the creation and implementation of effective teacher evaluation systems. In Ohio, recent amendments to HB 153 (Governor Kasich’s budget bill) would require districts to use student value-added data as at least 50 percent of teacher evaluations and to lay off teachers in order of evaluation rating, not seniority. These reforms are certainly a much-needed improvement, but implementation will be the deciding factor in whether or not the new evaluation systems will actually be effective.
Passing Muster: Evaluating Teacher
Evaluation Systems
Steven Glazerman, et
al.
Brookings Institution
April 2011
