Valley View vs. Greenville
Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > August > 28
Friday, August 28, 2009
Jamie Davies O’Leary: Ohio needs Teach for America talent
The Aug. 17 editorial, “Ohio should bring Teach for America here,” was spot on, and not just because I’m an alumna of the program.
The article argued that not having an Ohio Teach For America program prevents many smart and talented educators from coming to the Buckeye State.
The editorial cited the necessary changes needed to create an Ohio Teach for America, including changes to teacher certification rules, funding for training and buy-in from teacher unions.
Not to gloss over the importance of regulatory changes (Teach for America’s entry here is impossible otherwise), but the bigger and better question is, “Why Teach for America?”
One common justification for allowing Teach for America to put down roots is the potential to recruit smart, energetic young people. In Ohio, we’re losing talent. Earlier this year, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute explored this trend in a report called Losing Ohio’s Future, which elucidated some of the causes.
But would the creation of an Ohio Teach for America program in Dayton, Cleveland or Appalachia promise to retain young talent?
Teach for America recently released a report illustrating which national universities and colleges sent the most graduates into the 2009 corps. Ohio is definitely losing talented college graduates to other Teach for America-friendly states.
Of the top 20 large schools (defined as 10,000 undergraduates or more) supplying the most graduates for Teach for America, two are in Ohio: Ohio State University and Miami University.
Although Ohio doesn’t make the list for medium-sized schools, three of its colleges rank in the top 20 small schools (defined as 2,999 or fewer undergraduates): the College of Wooster, Kenyon College and Oberlin College.
In fact, Ohio has more schools on Teach for America’s top 60 college list than any other state except Massachusetts and California. And we are the clear winner in the Midwest (Michigan had two schools; Indiana had two; Illinois had four).
Whether you think this exodus matters will depend on your opinion of Teach for America. First, there is the debate of whether Teach for America teachers are successful in the classroom.
Second, there is a broader question: To what extent do Teach for America alumni contribute to educational innovation and entrepreneurialism in the larger community?
The first debate has raged for a while, and I won’t go into it here, but there is plenty of rigorous evidence supporting the success of Teach for America teachers.
The second question is one that we in Ohio can’t afford to ignore.
The evidence on the positive impact made by Teach for America alumni is indisputable. Most notably, the program has produced the outstanding Michelle Rhee and David Levin types.
Michelle Rhee, an Ohio native, left Teach for America, went on to found The New Teacher Project, and is now the chancellor of Washington, D.C., Public Schools.
David Levin founded the Knowledge is Power Program charter schools. KIPP schools serve 20,000 students in mostly poor communities and consistently post extraordinary academic results.
But beyond the Rhees and the Levins, the impact made by the average Teach for America alum is still remarkable. According to Teach for America’s 2008 Alumni Social Impact report, two-thirds of alumni are working or studying full-time in education.
Of those alumni who are still working in schools, 91 percent are employed in low-income communities.
And many TFAers go on to significant leadership roles. Across the country, they fill 293 principal positions and 23 leadership positions as a district or charter superintendent.
Places like Dayton or my hometown of Mansfield would benefit mightily from this infusion of talent. Ohio’s achievement gap between poor, mostly minority students and their wealthier peers isn’t any narrower than in neighboring states.
But we are sorely missing part of the solution to close the gap. Teach for America types, with all of their tireless dedication, are funneled to other states. To be fair, Ohio is home to many brilliant, reform-minded educators who are already doing great work in schools like the Dayton Early College Academy and scores of others. But Ohio needs more.
Jamie Davies O’Leary is a research analyst with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. She taught kindergarten in Camden, N.J., when she was part of Teach for America.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Education, Guest Columns, Ohio government, Ohio politics
Give students help, not just complaints
When state report cards came out this week, Kettering school officials were among the most disappointed.
The district met 29 of the 30 state benchmarks, had a “performance index score” of 100.2 — ranking in the top 40 percent among 60 Dayton area districts — and, for the second consecutive year, got extra credit for better than expected growth in test scores.
Even so, Kettering was rated “continuous improvement” — the fourth of six rating categories. That put Kettering behind four out of every five districts in Ohio, prompting Superintendent Jim Schoenlein to call the state’s ranking system “unfair” and “bizarre.”
Mr. Schoenlein’s reaction is a common one for superintendents in his situation. He and others are not completely wrong about the state’s approach to ranking school districts. It could be improved.
Even so, blaming the system is missing the most important point. Kettering and other districts dragged down by underperforming subgroups need to ask what they’re doing poorly.
Under the federal No Child Left Behind law, school districts are required to track the performance of any minority group for which they have significant numbers. (Ohio has defined that as 30 or more students.)
These “subgroups” may be ethnic groups such as blacks and Hispanics. But they also can be groups like poor children, those who need special education and those who are learning English as a second language.
If any one subgroup does not make the progress that is expected, the district loses big points. In Ohio, that can quickly knock a district down on the rating chart.
There was an important reason why this provision was included as part of No Child Left Behind. For years, high performing districts masked the low performance of these subgroups with the stellar scores of the majority of their kids. Subgroup tracking was strongly backed by liberal and civil rights groups as a way to force districts to pay attention to kids who need extra help, but in the past fell through the cracks even in good schools.
The two subgroups that failed to make enough progress in Kettering were both difficult groups — special education students and English language learners. But getting those kids to acceptable scores can be done with focus and effort.
Consider English learners. They make up a tiny 1.4 percent (99 kids) of Kettering’s student body, but their scores aren’t good. Just 58 percent of third-graders in this category were proficient in reading.
By comparison, however, English learners are about 2 percent of the student body for Northmont, another good performing suburban district roughly similar in size to Kettering. But in Northmont, 85 percent of third-graders in that category were proficient in reading.
For students in special education, 56 percent of Kettering third-graders scored proficient compared to 71 percent in Northmont. Again, the percentages of kids in that category districtwide are similar — 15.3 percent in Kettering and 13.8 percent in Northmont.
Certainly, Kettering needs to focus more attention on English learners and those in special education. The report card has drilled home that message for two years previously.
Maybe Ohio should not penalize districts so severely — knocking them down two pegs in the ratings — based on the performance of such a small percentage of students.
But districts also shouldn’t blame the rules when it’s clear they have work to do to help kids who — consistently — are being left behind.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
