Study on Students Entering Magnet and Charter Schools

Policy Matters Ohio released on October 1, 2009 a study called Ready to Learn: Ohio Assessment Shows Charters, Magnets Get Head Start by Piet van Lier. This study examines the scores on the 2008 Kindergarten Readiness Assessment-Literacy (KRA-L) and finds that kindergartners entering charter and magnet schools in Ohio’s urban school districts performed significantly better than did students in district neighborhood or “default” schools.

The KRA-L assesses oral language, rhyming, letter identification, and alliteration for students entering Kindergarten and is used to individualize instruction for Kindergarten students. The study shows that charter schools located in seven urban districts averaged nearly 8% higher on the KRA-L than did district schools, and more than 10% higher when district magnet schools were not included in the district average. Magnet schools scored more than 18% higher than default schools.

The report also includes an analysis of district-level differences among school types for several urban districts. Magnet schools in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo posted higher average scores for entering students than charter schools, and charter schools posted higher averages than default schools. Dayton charter schools scored slightly higher than district magnets.

An analysis of KRA-L scores compared to scores on the Ohio Achievement Test (OAT) scores in third-grade reading and math shows that schools that do better on the KRA-L also post higher OAT scores. According to the report, “Higher KRA-L scores at charter and magnet schools suggest that children are coming to these schools better equipped in terms of early literacy, one of several areas that contribute to school readiness. These findings align with research showing that, on the whole, parents who enroll their children in schools that require a decision beyond automatic enrollment in a neighborhood school are more engaged with their children's education. Research has shown that such parental involvement is a key factor in a child’s school success.“

“In practical terms, more involved parents are more likely to have the time to be able to visit a school, sign a contract requiring a certain level of involvement with the school or the child’s education, or have the resources to pay the application fee charged by some charters.”

Policy Matters Ohio is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute dedicated to researching an economy that works for Ohio. Policy Matters seeks to broaden debate about economic and education policy by doing research on issues that matter to working people and their families.

• Full report (PDF) >

Back to top

New Report on Closing the Achievement Gap

The Center on Education Policy (CEP), Jack Jennings president, released on October 1, 2009 the third in a series of reports on the progress being made in closing the achievement gap among subgroups of students. State Test Score Trends Through 2007-08, Part 3: Are Achievement Gaps Closing and Is Achievement Rising for All? examines testing data from all 50 states and reports the achievement trends and gap trends of subgroups of students based on ethnicity and income between 2002 through 2008. CEP’s study analyzes state test data in three different ways and reports the following:

• Student achievement gaps have narrowed across all grade levels and subjects for minority and low-income students.
• Significant gaps persist in many states.
• Gains made by various racial/ethnic subgroups have outpaced gains by white or non-low-income students in most states.
• Across subgroups and states, there was more progress in closing gaps at the elementary and middle school levels than at the high school level.
• Most often gaps narrowed because the achievement of lower-performing subgroups went up rather than because the achievement of higher-performing subgroups went down.
• Narrowing the gaps in average test scores among students has been more difficult, but the gaps in average test scores narrowed more often than they widened.
• All subgroups made more gains than declines in grade 4 at all three achievement levels (basic, proficient, and advanced).
• State test results broken out by subgroup were more positive in math than in reading at all achievement levels.
• Between one-fourth and one-third of the states with data saw declines in the percentage of student in various subgroups reaching the advanced level in reading.
• Progress in closing gaps in both reading and math was particularly noteworthy for Latino and African American students.
• African American students still had the largest average gaps in percentages of students scoring proficient than any other subgroup.
• The Asian subgroup generally outperformed all other subgroups, including white students, in all subject and grade level combinations except high school reading.

The report notes that gaps are still widening in 23 percent of cases, which means that test scores for lower-scoring subgroups must increase at a faster rate in order to close gaps—a main goal of the No Child Left Behind Act.

The report is part 3 of CEP’s 2009 series, State Test Score Trends through 2007-08. Parts 1 and 2 of the series, Is the Emphasis on Proficiency Shortchanging Higher- and Lower-Achieving Students? and Is There a Plateau Effect in Test Scores?, are available online along with individual profiles showing subgroup trends for each of the 50 states.

The following are the results for Ohio. (Please note: The report includes information about the data and test characteristics which place limitations on the results of the study for Ohio. These limitations should be considered in any analysis.)

• “Overall, Ohio students made gains at the basic and proficient achievement levels; results were somewhat more mixed at the advanced level.”
• “The percentage of students performing at or above the basic level in reading increased slightly at the elementary and middle school grades analyzed and grew at a moderate-to-large rate at the high school level. In math, there was a moderate-to-large decline in the percentage basic at the elementary grade analyzed, but moderate-to-large gains at the middle and high school levels.”
• “In reading, the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level and above increased at a moderate-to-large rate at the elementary and high school grades analyzed and at a slight rate at the middle school level. In math, the percentage proficient decreased at a moderate-to-large rate at the elementary grade analyzed but rose at a moderate-to-large rate at the middle and high school grades.”
• “There were slight declines in the percentage of students reaching the advanced level in reading at the elementary and high school grades analyzed, but a moderate-to-large gain at the middle school grade. In math, the percentage advanced decreased at a moderate-to-large rate at the elementary grade analyzed but went up at a moderate-to-large rate at the middle and high school grades.”

More information >

Back to top

GAO Releases Report on State Assessments

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) released on September 24, 2009 a report called No Child Left Behind Act: Enhancements in the Department of Education’s Review Process Could Improve State Academic Assessments. The report includes information about the assessments that states have developed to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act since 2002, and how states have spent approximately $400 million from the U.S. Department of Education for assessments. The report includes the following findings:

• 48 of 49 states that responded to a GAO survey said that annual expenditures for ESEA assessments have increased since NCLB was enacted.
• Over half of the states reported that overall expenditures grew due to development of new assessments.
• Item development was most frequently reported by states to be the largest ESEA assessment expense, followed by scoring.
• State officials in selected states reported that alternate assessments for students with disabilities were more costly than general population assessments.
• 19 states reported that assessment budgets had been reduced by state fiscal cutbacks.
• Cost and time pressures have influenced state decisions about assessment item type—such as multiple choice or open/constructed response—and content. States most often chose multiple-choice items because they can be scored inexpensively within tight time frames resulting from the NCLB requirement to release results before the next school year.
• As an alternative to using mostly multiple choice, some states have developed practices, such as pooling resources from multiple states to take advantage of economies of scale, that let them reduce cost and use more open/constructed response items.
• Challenges facing states in their efforts to ensure valid and reliable assessments involved staff capacity, alternate assessments, and assessment security.
• States have been challenged to ensure validity and reliability for alternate assessments.
• GAO identified several gaps in assessment security policies that were not addressed in the U.S. DOE's review process for overseeing state assessments. These gaps could affect validity and reliability.
• States report that the U.S. DOE»s review process for state assessment did not allow states to communicate with reviewers to clarify issues, which has led to miscommunication.

The GAO report recommends that U.S. Department of Education update its peer review protocols to incorporate best practices in assessment security when they become available in spring 2010, develop methods for peer reviewers and states to communicate directly during the peer review process so questions that arise can be addressed quickly, and help states understand what they need to do to improve their assessment systems in cases where the Secretary of Education's peer review decisions differed from those of the reviewers.

• Full report >

Back to top

Race to the Top Resource from The Wallace Foundation

The Wallace Foundation released in September 2009 a policy brief titled Research Findings to Support Effective Educational Policymaking: Evidence & Action Steps for State, District & Local Policymakers. The policy brief summarizes the research findings from several Wallace studies, and organizes them to assist state policymakers develop comprehensive and coordinated strategies to achieve the Race to the Top (RTT) objectives. The following topics are included:

• Coordinating state, city, and district policies
• Turning around the lowest-performing schools—the role of district leaders
• Turning around the lowest-performing schools—the role of the principal
• Preparing and developing effective school leaders
• Expanding opportunities for out-of-school learning

More information >

Back to top

Votes Count Report

The Pew Center on the States’ Pre-K Now Campaign, Marci Young project director, released a report on October 22, 2009 titled Votes Count: Legislative Action on Pre-K Fiscal Year 2010. This report evaluates state budgets to determine which legislatures consider high-quality pre-K among their top education reforms. Research shows that high-quality early learning helps children succeed in school and contributes to the economic vitality of a state. According to the report, there are many examples from Florida, Maine, Maryland, and Oregon that show how states have used resources from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to support pre-K programs. The report also notes the following:

• 29 states and the District of Columbia increased or held steady funding for pre-kindergarten education.
• Nine states and the District of Columbia include pre-K in their school funding formulas, allocating per-child funding for 4-year-olds based on enrollment.
• 13 legislatures increased investment in existing programs by nearly $130 million: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
• Two states that previously had no state pre-K programs approved pilot initiatives: Alaska and Rhode Island.
• Nine states and the District of Columbia anticipate increases through the school funding formula (Texas is included in this group as well but counted only once in the tally of 23 states with increased investments).
• Six states maintained investments at FY09 levels: Delaware, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.
• 10 states decreased funding: Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Washington.

Full report (PDF) >

Back to top