|
|
|
|
FOR RELEASE: Nov. 24, 1998
CONTACT: Ellen Mathia emathia@indiana.edu
812-855-0085 or 812-855-3911
or
Indiana Center for Evaluation
812-855-4438
SECOND-YEAR REPORT ON CLEVELAND SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
SUGGESTS POSITIVE EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE AND SCIENCE SKILLS
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The second-year evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Grant Program finds clearly significant differences in language skills between scholarship and public school students, and suggests similar differences in science scores. However, there are no significant differences in reading, mathematics or social studies scores.
Also, students attending two new private schools established under the program performed significantly less well in all areas than scholarship students at older private schools or their public school peers.
The report was released to the public today. The initial and current studies are part of a multi-year evaluation commissioned by the Ohio Department of Education and conducted by the Indiana Center for Evaluation at the Indiana University School of Education.
Principal researcher and Center for Evaluation Director Dr. Kim Metcalf said the second-year results provide a more complete picture of the choice program's effectiveness, and the ongoing evaluation will contribute to a better understanding of its impact. The longitudinal study is to investigate the effects of the program on academic achievement over multiple years. The research team's work is reviewed by an advisory board of experts appointed by the Ohio General Assembly's Legislative Office of Education Oversight.
The second-year study involved 94 scholarship fourth graders who had attended public school as second graders two years before. This included 66 scholarship students who attended existing private schools and 28 scholarship students who attended the two newly created private schools in Cleveland. A total of 343 students who continued in public school from second to fourth grade were a comparison group.
In the second-year evaluation, researchers sought answers to the following questions:
1) Were there differences between students who returned to the program during their fourth-grade year and those who didn't?
2) Were there differences between fourth-grade scholarship and public school students in demographic and background characteristics or pre-program achievement?
3) Are there differences in class size, teachers' education level, teachers' experience and other classroom variables between the scholarship schools and public schools?
4) What are the effects of the scholarship program on students' academic achievement after two years in the program and when other relevant variables are controlled?
The researchers found that students who returned to the choice program for the fourth grade had been achieving at significantly higher levels by the end of the third grade than students who dropped out of the program. Third-grade achievement scores in reading, science and social studies were lower for discontinuing students. "The students were similar in background demographic and pre-program achievement measures, so these cannot account for this result," said Metcalf.
Secondly, scholarship and public school students turn out to be remarkably similar in background demographic characteristics and previous achievement. "As in year one, students in each group are primarily African-American; most live with their mother and are eligible for the free lunch program, and slightly over half are females," Metcalf said. All students also had been achieving at roughly the national mean as second graders.
Researchers found measurable differences in the classroom variables between scholarship and public schools. For one thing, scholarship class sizes were significantly smaller (by about three students) and while teachers in both groups had completed a bachelor's degree, public school teachers were more likely to have completed at least some coursework beyond that level. Furthermore, public school teachers had more years of teaching experience than their counterparts in the scholarship classrooms.
As for the effects of the scholarship program on students' academic achievement after two years in the program, "an interesting pattern emerges," Metcalf said. "In general, scholarship students performed significantly better than public school students in language and less measurably better in science, but otherwise there are no significant differences in reading, mathematics or social studies skills."
"The scholarship program appears to provide additional educational options to low-income, minority, single parent families," Metcalf said. "Further, we discovered that students who continue in the program for at least two years are comparable to their public school peers in demographic characteristics and previous academic achievement, so the program seems to successfully meet the goal of promoting educational choice without drawing only the best students from the public schools."
But Metcalf said the study raises even more questions. "We need to know if the effect on language and science skills reflects a trend or is merely a single-year aberration," he said. "And why is it that students in the new scholarship schools seem not to have benefited as fully as other scholarship students? Ultimately, what is it about public or private schools that seems to promote academic achievement, and can all schools make use of this information?"
Future research to be conducted on the Cleveland program by the Indiana Center on Evaluation will address those questions. "We will continue evaluation of the program and its effects on student achievement," Metcalf said, "and also seek to collect information from parents, students, teachers and administrators to investigate motivations and perceptions of those who participate or are impacted by the scholarship program."
By examining both the achievement data and supplemental findings, "we'll have a better understanding of the Cleveland program and of educational choice in general," he said.
Metcalf said voucher-type programs "are an interesting experiment that should continue, and should also continue to undergo evaluation, especially as the variety of educational options increases. Whether they are as good as advocates claim or as detrimental as opponents think, we still stand to learn a great deal from them."
Combined with the work of other researchers, he said, "the results we uncover here in Cleveland will assist parents, educators and policymakers in making more informed decisions about the implementation and effects of school choice."
John D. Simpkins, senior project researcher with the Battelle Institute in Columbus, Ohio, heads the advisory panel in charge of overseeing and reviewing the scholarship evaluation team's research. "The panel was convened by the state to provide technical review and assistance directly to the team, focusing on methodological and research issues, and to ensure the quality of the research," he said. "We wanted to be certain that the research is the best it can be to assist policy decisions and changes."
(Ellen Mathia, Office of Communications and Marketing, 812-855-0085, emathia@indiana.edu)