Ohio rated 'weak' on math elementary level policy instruction by new report
Ohio is 'weak' on policies to strengthen elementary teachers' math instruction, according to a new report by the National Council on Teacher Quality.
Ohio is one of 25 states that received a 'weak' rating by the NCTQ report that was released Tuesday. Only Alabama received a strong rating and seven states earned an unacceptable rating — Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and New Hampshire, according to the report.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The states earned their ratings based on these five policies —
Set specific, detailed math standards for teacher preparation programs.
Review teacher preparation programs to ensure they are providing robust math instruction.
Adopt a strong elementary math licensure test.
Require districts to select high-quality math curricula and support skillful implementation.
Provide professional learning and ongoing support for teachers to sustain effective math instruction.
A weak rating means a state has some of those policies in place, but not all. Ohio was strong in teacher preparation programs and received a moderate ranking in having a strong elementary math licensure program, according to the report.
'Ohio's made significant investments in professional learning for teachers in reading, but much fewer investments in financially supporting professional learning in math instruction,' said NCTQ President Heather Peske.
This past school year was the first year Ohio school districts were required to teach the science of reading curriculum, which is based on decades of research that shows how the human brain learns to read and incorporates phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
Some of the Ohio's 2023 two-year budget went toward the science of reading — $86 million for educator professional development, $64 million for curriculum and instructional materials, and $18 million for literacy coaches.
'You can do two things at once,' Peske said. 'It's really important to kids that they have strong reading instruction and strong math instruction, so it's high time that Ohio focused on improving math instruction, especially at the elementary level.'
Student math scores predict future earnings better than reading scores, Peske said.
'Strong math skills add up to better reading scores, stronger college readiness, and eventually even higher earnings for students,' she said.
Ohio math scores are below pre-pandemic levels, according to the Nation's 2024 Report Card. Approximately 235,000 fourth-graders from 6,100 schools and 230,000 eighth-graders from 5,400 schools participated in the 2024 math and reading assessments between January and March of last year.
In Ohio, the average fourth-grade math score was 239, two points higher than the national average and one point higher than the state's fourth grade math scores in 2022. The scale for NAEP scores is 0-500.
The state's average eighth-grade math score was 279, seven points higher than the national average and three points higher than the state's 2022 test.
'If we want to improve student math outcomes, we really need to better prepare and support elementary teachers in their math instruction,' Peske said.
Ohio lawmakers are paying attention to student math scores. Ohio Senate Bill 19 would require school districts or individual schools to come up with a math achievement improvement plan if they don't have at least 52% of students receive a proficient score in math comprehension.
The bill has had three hearings so far in the Senate Education Committee.
Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
6 days ago
- Boston Globe
New Hampshire is expanding school choice. Will Massachusetts follow?
Advertisement This surge in school choice is part of a broader national trend. Enrollment in such programs has more than doubled since 2020 — from roughly 540,000 to more than Massachusetts, home to some of the nation's strongest private, parochial, charter, and vocational-technical schools, is increasingly being left behind, politically unwilling and legally constrained from offering families access to private options. The catalyst for this wave of private options was the US Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The court Advertisement Her story resonated nationwide, particularly during the pandemic. The move to online learning by public schools, union resistance to returning students to the classroom, and a seeming disregard for students' mental health and learning loss drove many families toward private and homeschool options. Even in Massachusetts, Massachusetts may remain among the top-performing states nationally, but that status masks a troubling decline. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (the nation's report card), average eighth-grade The pandemic and student distraction due to cellphones are partially to blame, but the decline is Clearly there is a hunger for options other than traditional public school. Advertisement New Hampshire's latest choice expansion is relevant to Massachusetts because, in addition to the two states' cultural and demographic similarities, they post nearly identical academic performance. On the 2024 NAEP, New Hampshire eighth-graders scored averages of 280 in As student performance declines, Massachusetts lawmakers remain committed to a top-down, monopolistic education system. They refuse to consider private school choice, hiding behind 19th-century anti-Catholic amendments in the state constitution that prohibit public funds from flowing to religious schools, even indirectly. At the same time, lawmakers have stood by as the pillars of the Commonwealth's landmark 1993 education reforms — strong academic standards, accountability through testing, and choice through charter schools — have steadily eroded. New Hampshire is taking a more pragmatic approach: It is steadily expanding school choice with thoughtful fiscal safeguards and a clear focus on helping the students most in need. As a result, many more New Hampshire parents will now be able to narrow class- and race-based achievement gaps — whether through public or private schools, the small learning groups called The recently passed 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' President Trump's massive tax and spending plan, enacts the first national school choice program, offering scholarships funded through tax credits to all but the wealthiest families. Starting in 2027, taxpayers nationwide will be able to redirect up to $1,700 in federal taxes to approved scholarship organizations. Advertisement The program could benefit many of the 120,000 families in Massachusetts paying a private school tuition, or using homeschool and microschool options, which grew enormously during the pandemic. Expanding its appeal further, the program benefits families paying for after-school supplemental learning, including tutoring. The catch? States must opt in. For now, Massachusetts officials say they are For the dozens of states with school choice programs, including New Hampshire, the pathway forward is clear: Private school choice has broad public support and expands equality of educational opportunity. What will Massachusetts do?
Miami Herald
08-07-2025
- Miami Herald
Another Education Department delay: Release of NAEP science scores
The repercussions from the decimation of staff at the Education Department keep coming. Last week, the fallout led to a delay in releasing results from a national science test. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is best known for tests that track reading and math achievement but includes other subjects too. In early 2024, when the main reading and math tests were administered, there was also a science section for eighth graders. The board that oversees NAEP had announced at its May meeting that it planned to release the science results in June. But that month has since come and gone. Why the delay? There is no commissioner of education statistics to sign off on the score report, a requirement beforeit is released, according to five current and former officials who are familiar with the release of NAEP scores, but asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak to the press or feared retaliation. Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms. Peggy Carr, a former Biden administration appointee, was dismissed as the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics in February, two years before the end of her six-year term set by Congress. Chris Chapman was named acting commissioner, but then he was fired in March, along with half the employees at the Education Department. The role has remained vacant since. A spokesman for the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP, said the science scores will be released later this summer, but denied that the lack of a commissioner is the obstacle. "The report building is proceeding so the naming of a commissioner is not a bureaucratic hold up to its progress," Stephaan Harris said by email. The delay matters. Education policymakers have been keen to learn if science achievement had held steady after the pandemic or tumbled along with reading and math. (Those reading and math scores were released in January.) The Trump administration has vowed to dismantle the Education Department and did not respond to an emailed question about when a new commissioner would be appointed. Related: Chaos and confusion as the statistics arm of the Education Department is reduced to a skeletal staff of 3 Researchers hang onto data Keeping up with administration policy can be head spinning these days. Education researchers were notified in March that they would have to relinquish federal data they were using for their studies. (The department shares restricted datasets, which can include personally identifiable information about students, with approved researchers.) But researchers learned on June 30 that the department had changed its mind and decided not to terminate this remote access. Lawyers who are suing the Trump administration on behalf of education researchers heralded this about-face as a "big win." Researchers can now finish projects in progress. Still, researchers don't have a way of publishing or presenting papers that use this data. Since the mass firings in mid-March, there is no one remaining inside the Education Department to review their papers for any inadvertent disclosure of student data, a required step before public release. And there is no process at the moment for researchers to request data access for future studies. "While ED's change-of-heart regarding remote access is welcome," said Adam Pulver of Public Citizen Litigation Group, "other vital services provided by the Institute of Education Sciences have been senselessly, illogically halted without consideration of the impact on the nation's educational researchers and the education community more broadly. We will continue to press ahead with our case as to the other arbitrarily canceled programs." Pulver is the lead attorney for one of three suits fighting the Education Department's termination of research and statistics activities. Judges in the District of Columbia and Maryland have denied researchers a preliminary injunction to restore the research and data cuts. But the Maryland case is now fast-tracked and the court has asked the Trump administration to produce an administrative record of its decision making process by July 11. (See this previous story for more background on the court cases.) Related: Education researchers sue Trump administration, testing executive power Some NSF grants restored in California Just as the Education Department is quietly restarting some activities that DOGE killed, so is the National Science Foundation (NSF). The federal science agency posted on its website that it reinstated 114 awards to 45 institutions as of June 30. NSF said it was doing so to comply with a federal court order to reinstate awards to all University of California researchers. It was unclear how many of these research projects concerned education, one of the major areas that NSF funds. Researchers and universities outside the University of California system are hoping for the same reversal. In June, the largest professional organization of education researchers, the American Educational Research Association, joined forces with a large coalition of organizations and institutions in filing a legal challenge to the mass termination of grants by the NSF. Education grants were especially hard hit in a series of cuts in April and May. Democracy Forward, a public interest law firm, is spearheading this case. Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or barshay@ This story about delaying the NAEP science score report was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters. The post Another Education Department delay: Release of NAEP science scores appeared first on The Hechinger Report.
Forbes
19-06-2025
- Forbes
What Parents—and Industry—Need To Know About Education's Future
As the school year ends, many parents are breathing a sigh of relief—but they also have some critical homework of their own. America's education system is in crisis—one that transcends test scores and headlines. It's a slow-burning, systemic failure that has robbed millions of students of opportunity and taxpayers of trust. With all the money we spend, why aren't our kids learning? Consider this: Governments at all levels spend over $850 billion annually on K–12 education—averaging more than $16,000 per student, and exceeding $29,000 in places like New York and Washington, D.C, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Yet the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reveals that 69% of eighth graders are not proficient in reading, and 73% are not proficient in math. These poor results are not new. They have persisted through pre-pandemic years, despite record-high spending. If this were any other public service, there would be outrage. Instead, families are met with shrugs and excuses. The excuses range from COVID-era learning loss to a lack of funding. But these rationalizations collapse under scrutiny. Student performance has been flat or declining since 2013, and pandemic relief funds—totaling more than $190 billion—barely moved the needle. That money is now gone, and districts are facing a fiscal cliff after investing in one-time fixes instead of systemic improvements. It was irresponsible spending with no accountability—and families know it. Fortunately, parents are no longer waiting for top-down solutions. They are driving a movement for education freedom—a shift toward a future where learning is personalized, innovative, and accountable to the people it serves. That's what the Center for Education Reform's 2025 Parent Power! Index reveals. It's not a measure of school choice alone; it's a roadmap of how well states empower parents through access to options, meaningful funding portability, and a culture of transparency and innovation. In states like Texas, Iowa, Indiana, and Arkansas, recent legislation has transformed the landscape. Texas jumped 15 spots in this year's Index after launching the largest day-one Education Savings Account (ESA) program in the country. Iowa made ESAs universal and expanded its charter school sector. Indiana enacted new policies to ensure charter schools receive equitable funding, helping it rank third nationally. Arkansas expanded its ESA program to provide universal eligibility, moving it into the top 10. These states didn't just talk about parent power—they backed it with laws that let funding follow the student and gave families the freedom to choose. This momentum matters not just for families—but for economic growth. States that empower parents are also outperforming economically. When education policy aligns with workforce needs, innovation flourishes and businesses thrive. It's no coincidence that states leading in education freedom—like Texas, Indiana, and Iowa—are also magnets for economic development. Governors who deliver results in education are winning in other sectors too, because great education fuels a great economy. Several other states also saw dramatic improvements. Wyoming surged 30 spots after enacting a new education scholarship program. North Dakota climbed 18 positions with strong charter legislation. Louisiana, Idaho, and Tennessee all rose substantially by expanding or creating new programs that prioritize parent-directed learning. These ranking shifts underscore a broader trend: bold governors and state leaders who enact strong laws and align workforce needs with educational delivery are leading the charge in responding to parent demands. Meanwhile, too many states remain stuck in bureaucratic inertia. Nebraska slid 18 spots after voters repealed its newly passed choice law. South Carolina and the District of Columbia lost ground due to missteps in managing challenges to ESA and charter programs, respectively. These declines reflect the consequences of weak follow-through, lack of vision, or resistance to innovation. State leadership is the key variable. In a polarized era, it is often governors—regardless of party—who are earning popularity and political capital by championing education freedom. When state executives embrace policies that fund students rather than systems, they don't just improve education; they build public trust. Parents want more than vague promises. They want a guarantee that their children are worth the same amount in public funding regardless of which school they choose. They want transparency in curriculum and outcomes. They want innovation that breaks free from one-size-fits-all models. And most of all, they want urgency. Education freedom isn't a theory. It's happening now in microschools, hybrid academies, online platforms, and career-based programs across the country. When parents are in charge, education becomes dynamic and adaptive. Students thrive. Educators innovate. Communities grow stronger. This isn't just a policy imperative. It's a moral one. Every year we wait, another generation of students slips through the cracks. We need leaders who are willing to challenge the status quo, put families first, and fund education that works—wherever it happens. The Parent Power! Index doesn't just highlight where states stand; it offers a vision of what's possible when we stop funding systems and start funding families. That's how we reclaim excellence, restore trust, and fulfill the promise of American education.
