AEPA questions are changed today. Download new questions.
killexams.com AEPA braindumps contains a Complete Pool of Questions and Answers and braindumps confirmed and substantial including references and clarifications (where appropriate). Our objective to rehearse the Arizona Educator Proficiency Assessments exam prep is not just to finish the AEPA test at first endeavor however Really Improve Your Knowledge about the AEPA test course destinations.
AEPA Arizona Educator Proficiency Assessments book | http://babelouedstory.com/
AEPA book - Arizona Educator Proficiency Assessments Updated: 2023
Looking for AEPA test dumps that works in real exam?
The Arizona Educator Proficiency Assessments (AEPA) is a series of exams designed to measure the knowledge and skills of prospective educators in Arizona. These assessments are used to ensure that candidates meet the state's standards for teacher licensure and certification. The AEPA exams cover a wide range of subjects and grade levels, allowing candidates to demonstrate their proficiency in specific content areas.
The AEPA exams cover various subject areas and grade levels, depending on the specific certification sought by the candidate. The following is a general outline of the key areas covered in the AEPA exams:
1. Test Preparation:
- Understanding the structure and format of the AEPA exams
- Reviewing test-taking strategies and tips
- Familiarizing with the test objectives and content domains
- Accessing study materials and resources
2. Subject-Specific Content:
- Reviewing subject-specific knowledge and skills
- Understanding the Arizona Academic Standards for the subject area
- Demonstrating proficiency in the key concepts, theories, and practices
- Applying content knowledge to real-world scenarios
3. Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities:
- Understanding effective instructional strategies and practices
- Demonstrating knowledge of student development and learning theories
- Assessing student performance and providing feedback
- Understanding legal and ethical responsibilities of educators
4. Classroom Management and Communication:
- Creating a positive and inclusive learning environment
- Managing classroom behavior and promoting student engagement
- Communicating effectively with students, parents, and colleagues
- Utilizing technology and resources for instruction and communication
The specific test objectives for each AEPA assessment vary based on the subject and grade level being tested. However, the general objectives of the AEPA exams include, but are not limited to:
1. Demonstrating knowledge and understanding of subject-specific content.
2. Applying pedagogical practices and strategies for effective teaching.
3. Assessing student learning and providing appropriate feedback.
4. Managing the classroom and promoting a positive learning environment.
5. Complying with professional responsibilities and ethical guidelines.
The AEPA exams cover a broad range of subjects and grade levels, each with its own syllabus and content domains. The syllabus provides a breakdown of the Topics covered in each exam, including specific content areas and associated competencies. It may include the following components:
- Test structure and format
- Content domains and weighting
- Key concepts, theories, and practices
- Instructional strategies and pedagogical knowledge
- Classroom management and communication skills
- Professional responsibilities and ethical guidelines
Arizona Educator Proficiency Assessments Arizona-Education Proficiency book
If are you panic to pass your AEPA AEPA Exam? With the help of the our AEPA AEPA VCE test Simulator you will learn how to polish your abilities. Our AEPA brain dumps are complete and to the point. The AEPA AEPA PDF documents contains everything you need to pass AEPA test with flying colors.
Arizona Educator Proficiency Assessments
B. It provides more work for lawyers
C. It lets ordinary citizens be part of the judicial system
D. It forces innocent people to prove their innocence
E. It keeps crime rates low Answer: A Question: 560
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal helped America recover from the Great Depression by
providing federal money for construction projects, including schools and roads. How did this
help the country recover?
A. It gave money back to the tax payers
B. It created desperately needed good paying jobs
C. It encouraged wealthy people to do the same thing
D. It made trade easier with Mexico
E. It allowed construction companies to make a large profit Answer: B Question: 561
In American cities after the Industrialization Age began, it was not unusual to see children
huddled together without shoes, warm clothing, shelter, or decent food. These children illustrated
what unhappy effect of Industrialization in the United States?
A. Because the focus was on manufacturing, not enough shoes were made
B. Because of low wages, many people lived in poverty
C. Because of protective employment laws, child laborers could no longer be employed
D. Because of the freedom women experienced in the workplace, many abandoned their children
E. Because parents work days were guided by strict rules, they were often strict at home. As a
result, their children ran away and lived on the streets. Answer: B
Section 48: Sec Forty Eight (562-567)
Details:Science Passage Practice 1
In 1949, a study of heart disease included 5,137 adults: 2,292 men and 2,845 women. All the
individuals were 49 to 70 years of age, and none showed any signs of coronary artery disease.
After 14-16 years of careful follow-up, it was found that:
I.151 men and 37 women showed evidence of coronary artery disease that would account for a
II.102 men and 18 women died of coronary artery disease before they reached the age of 65.
III.58 percent of the men and 39 percent of the women died within one hour of having a
IV.For both men and women, sudden death was more likely if they were under age 55 at the time
of the attack.
V.Not all heart attacks produce symptoms. A considerable number of men and women had a
myocardial infarction (heart muscle damage) without knowing it. Of those who suffered such
"silent coronaries"; 22 percent of the men and 35 percent of the women did not know muscle
damage had occurred. Question: 562
In the design of this study, the researchers made sure that
A. some individuals had coronary artery disease
B. some individuals were in their thirties
C. the number of men and women was equal
D. all participants were adults Answer: D Question: 563
As explained in the study, a person who has a "silent coronary"
A. is unaware of any heart attack symptoms
B. does not scream in pain while having a heart attack
C. shows no evidence of heart muscle damage
D. always dies of a myocardial infarction Answer: A Question: 564
A woman who is 53 years old has a heart attack. Compared with a man, she is more likely to
A. die of coronary artery disease before age 65
B. have a
C. die within an hour of the attack
D. die as the result of a heart attack after age 65 Answer: B Question: 565
Which conclusion is consistent with the results of the study?
A. Chances of death within one hour of a heart attack are greater for women than men.
B. Chances of death from coronary artery disease are less for men than women.
C. Evidence of coronary artery disease is equal among men and women.
D. Sudden death is more likely for both men and women if they are under age 55 at the time of
the attack. Answer: D Question: 566
Based on the results of this experiment, of the people who died of coronary artery disease before
A. 18 percent were women
B. 20 percent were women
C. 85 percent were men
D. 102 percent were men Answer: C Question: 567
A group of 1000 men and 1200 women between the ages of 50 and 65 are to be studied for
coronary artery disease. Based on the original study, which of the following results could be
predicted most reliably?
A. Eight (8) women will die of coronary heart disease after they reach age 65.
B. Sixteen (16) women will show significant evidence of coronary artery disease.
C. Forty-four (44) men will die of coronary artery disease after they reach age 65.
D. Sixty-five (65) men will show no significant evidence of coronary artery disease. Answer: B
Section 49: Sec Forty Nine (568-573)
Details:Science Passage Practice 2
A chemistry student placed a strip of blue litmus paper and a strip of pink litmus paper in a glass
dish. Then she added a drop of dilute sulfuric acid to each strip of litmus paper. She observed
that the blue litmus paper turned pink, but the pink litmuspaper did not change color. Next she
placed a drop of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) on other strips of blue and pink litmus paper. This
time, the pink litmus paper turned blue, but the blue litmus paper did not change. Finally, she put
a drop of distilled water onstrips of blue and pink litmus paper. Neither strip changed color. She
repeated the tests several times with the same results. The student concluded that acids turn blue
litmus paper pink; bases, such as sodium hydroxide, turn pink litmus paper blue.As water did not
affect either pink or blue litmus paper, she reasoned that water was not an acid or a base, but a
neutral substance. Keeping these results in mind, the student poured a little sodium hydroxide
into a beaker containingpink and blue litmus paper. Then she added hydrochloric acid (HCl)
drop by drop until the solutionbecame neutral. She determined that a new, neutral substance had
formed in the beaker. The substance was table salt, or sodium chloride (NaCl), which isone of
many salts formed from an acid and a base. Question: 568
If a drop of an unknown substance turns blue litmus paper pink, but does not change pink litmus
paper, the substance is a(n):
D. salt Answer: B Question: 569
n the presence of potassium hydroxide (KOH):
A. blue litmus paper turns pink
B. pink litmus paper turns blue
C. blue litmus paper becomes darker
D. pink litmus paper does not change
208 Answer: B Question: 570
blue and pink litmus paper are put in a beaker filled with a clear solution, neither
When strips of
litmus paper changes color. The solution:
A. must be water
B. must be neutral
C. may be an acid
D. may be a base Answer: B Question: 571
In another experiment, the student added hydrochloric acid drop by drop to a solution of sodium
hydroxide containing strips of originally blue and originally pink litmus paper. As she continued
adding acid, the originally:
A. pink litmus paper remained pink
B. blue litmus paper remained blue
C. blue litmus paper turned from pink back to blue
D. pink litmus paper turned from blue back to pink Answer: D Question: 572
Based on the results of this experiment, a salt would be formed when:
A. NaCl is combined with NaOH
B. H2O is combined with HCl
C. KOH is combined with HCl
D. HCl is combined with H2OSO4 Answer: C
209 Question: 573
In setting up an aquarium, several factors must be considered before introducing fish. Which of
the following factors could be tested using litmus paper?
D. temperature Answer: B
Section 50: Sec Fifty (574-579)
Details:Science Passage Practice 3
The complex behavior of the poor-sighted, three-spined male stickleback fish has been studied
extensively as a model of species behavior in courtship and mating. After a male has migrated to
a suitable spot, he builds a spawning nest of sand and sediment. In courting, he performs a
special "zigzag" dance. The female then follows the male to the nest where she spawns and he
fertilizes the spawned eggs. Also, male sticklebacks have been shown to exhibit territorial
behaviors. A biologist performed three experiments to learn more about the behavior of the
Tank 1 and Tank 2 are set up with identical conditions and one male stickleback is placed in each
tank. Both fish build nests in their respective tanks. The male from Tank 1 is removed from his
tank and is replaced with an egg-laden female; the male from Tank 2 is removed from his tank
and is introduced into Tank 1. In Tank 1, the male does not perform the zigzag dance and no
spawning occurs. The male retreats to a corner of the tank.
A male stickleback in an aquarium builds his nest. A fat, round male is introduced into the
environment. The original male performs the zigzag dance and attempts to lead the round male to
the nest. The round male refuses and begins to flap his fins and swim in circles. The first male
then begins to flap his fins, circle his nest, and occasionally prod the other fish to a far corner of
A small, flat-shaped female is introduced into a tank where a male has built a nest. The male
circles the female a few times, and then retreats to a corner of the tank. Question: 574
The experimental data would support the hypothesis that the purpose of the male stickleback's
mating dance is to:
A. keep away other male sticklebacks.
B. fertilize the eggs.
C. lure and entice the female to the nest
D. establish territorial rights. Answer: C Question: 575
Based on observations from the above experiments, which factor initially stimulates the male to
do the zigzag dance?
A. The physical environment.
B. The shape of the fish.
C. The number of fish in the tank.
D. The sex of the fish. Answer: A Question: 576
Which experiment supports the hypothesis that the male exhibits territorial behavior?
A. 1 only.
B. 2 only.
C. 1 and 2 only.
D. 1, 2, and 3. Answer: C Question: 577
To further investigate the territorial behavior of the stickleback, the biologist should vary which
of the following factors in Experiment 2?
A. The temperature of the water.
B. The fatness of the male fish.
C. The sediment and sand in the tank.
D. The size of the tank.
211 Answer: D Question: 578
To clarify the results of Experiment 1, the biologist should set up which of the following test
A. Maintain the positions of the male sticklebacks and add another egg-laden female to Tank 1.
B. Place both male sticklebacks in Tank 2.
C. Return the original male stickleback to Tank 1 and observe its behavior with the female fish.
D. Repeat the experiment using a different species of fish. Answer: C Question: 579
A male stickleback has been established in an aquarium and has built a nest. If one egg-laden
female and several flat-shaped male sticklebacks are placed in the tank, one would most likely
A. all the males would perform the zigzag dance.
B. all the males would circle the female.
C. only the male that was originally in the tank would perform the zigzag dance.
D. the female would retreat to a corner. Answer: C
For More exams visit https://killexams.com/vendors-exam-list
Kill your test at First Attempt....Guaranteed!
Arizona-Education Proficiency book - BingNews
Search resultsArizona-Education Proficiency book - BingNews
https://killexams.com/exam_list/Arizona-EducationArizona State Board of Education releases school letter grades for 2022-23. How to check your schoolYour browser is not supported | azcentral.com
azcentral.com wants to ensure the best experience for all of our readers, so we built our site to take advantage of the latest technology, making it faster and easier to use.
Unfortunately, your browser is not supported. Please obtain one of these browsers for the best experience on azcentral.com
Wed, 15 Nov 2023 05:31:00 -0600en-UStext/htmlhttps://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2023/10/31/arizona-school-letter-grades-released-for-the-2022-23-school-year/71382728007/Arizona Senate president says GOP won’t cut education funding despite budget deficitNo result found, try new keyword!PHOENIX (3TV/CBS 5) — Republican leaders want to increase teacher pay without increasing taxes or cutting education funding. At the state Legislature this week, GOP lawmakers rolled out a plan to ask ...Thu, 16 Nov 2023 17:36:00 -0600en-ustext/htmlhttps://www.msn.com/The Nation’s Charter Report Card
When Minnesota passed the nation’s first charter-school law in 1991, its main purpose was to Improve education by allowing for new, autonomous public schools where teachers would have more freedom to innovate and meet students’ needs. Freed from state regulations, district rules, and—in most cases—collective-bargaining constraints, charter schools could develop new models of school management and “serve as laboratories for new educational ideas,” as analyst Brian Hassel observed in an early study of the innovation. In the words of Joe Nathan, a longtime school-choice advocate and former Minnesota teacher, “well-designed public school choice plans provide the freedom educators want and the opportunities students need while encouraging the dynamism our public education system requires.”
Over the next two decades, 45 additional states and Washington, D.C., passed their own laws establishing charter schools. And by 2020–21, nearly 7,800 charter schools enrolled approximately 3.7 million students, or 7.5 percent of all public-school students nationwide. The most accurate charter law was passed in 2023 in Montana, though its implementation has so far been blocked by court order; today, only North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Vermont have not passed charter legislation.
During those years, advocates have carefully tracked and analyzed state policies and enrollments to compare charter school growth, demand, and access across the United States. But to date, there have been no comparisons of charter school performance across states based on student achievement adjusting for background characteristics on a single set of nationally administered standardized tests. Instead, advocacy organizations routinely rank states based on one or more aspects of their charter school programs—factors such as the degree of autonomy charters are afforded, whether they receive equitable funding, and the share of a state’s students they serve. These rankings are informative, but they do not provide direct information about how much students are learning, which is, ultimately, the general public’s and policymakers’ primary concern.
We provide that information here, based on student performance in studying and math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, between 2009 and 2019. These rankings, created at the Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) at Harvard University, are adjusted for the age of the charter school and for individual students’ background characteristics. They are based on representative samples of charter-school students in grades 4 and 8 and cover 35 states and Washington, D.C. We also estimate the association between student achievement and various charter laws and characteristics.
Overall, the top-performing states are Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, and New Jersey. The lowest-ranked charter performance is in Hawaii, followed by Tennessee, Michigan, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Students in the South tend to perform above average, while students in midwestern Rust Belt states rank at the midpoint or below. We also find that students at schools run by charter networks outperform students at independent charters, on average, while students at schools run by for-profit organizations have lower scores on NAEP, on average. Students at charters authorized by state education agencies have higher scores than students at those authorized by local school districts, non-educational organizations, or universities.
We hope these rankings will spur charter-school improvement in much the same way that NAEP results have stimulated efforts to Improve student achievement more generally. Current debates include whether authorizers should regulate schools closely or allow many and diverse flowers to bloom, whether charters should stand alone or be incorporated into charter school networks, and whether for-profit charters should be permitted. A state ranking of charter student performances may not answer such questions, but it can stimulate conversations and foster future research that could.
Assessing State-Level Achievement
We create the PEPG rankings based on NAEP tests in studying and math. The tests, known as the Nation’s Report Card, are administered every two years to representative samples of U.S. students in grades 4 and 8. To obtain a robust trial for each state, each survey wave includes more than 100,000 observations of public-school students in both district and charter schools. The number of tested charter-school students varies between 3,630 and 7,990 per test, depending on the subject, grade, and year.
Our analysis looks at the period between 2009 and 2019, when 24 tests were administered. This yielded 3,732,660 results in all, but we focus on the 145,730 results from charter-school students. We include results from Washington, D.C., and the 35 states with enough tested charter-school students to permit precise estimates. That excludes the five states that do not currently allow charter schools, as well as Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Washington, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Still, the results in our trial account for more than 99 percent of all charter-school student scores in NAEP.
We also look at anonymized demographic information about test-takers, which was provided by the U.S. Department of Education under a special license. The weighted composition of our trial is 32 percent white, 30 percent Black, 31 percent Hispanic, and 4 percent Asian and Pacific Islanders. Some 58 percent are from a low-income household. Fifty-six percent were tested at a charter school located in a city, 30 percent in a suburb, 5 percent in a small town, and 10 percent in a rural area. Among 8th graders, 45 percent indicate that at least one parent completed college. Another 37 percent report that their parent does not have a college degree, and information is missing for the remaining 18 percent.
In estimating charter performance by state, we place charter scores in each subject on a common scale, adjusting for year of testing, subject, grade level, and the year the charter school opened. NAEP weights test-score observations so they are representative of the true underlying student population. We also adjust scores to take into account the age of the test-taker, parents’ education levels, gender, ethnicity, English proficiency, disability status, eligibility for free and reduced school lunch, student-reported access to books and computers at home, and location.
We then rank states based on the adjusted average scores for their charter students from 2009 to 2019 as compared to the average scores for all charter students nationwide over the same period. We report the size of these differences, whether positive or negative, as a percentage of one standard deviation in student test scores and note here that a full standard deviation is equivalent to roughly three-and-a-half years of learning for students in these grades. Several states have such similar scores they can be considered to be statistically tied, so undue weight should not be placed on any specific rank number. (See the unabridged version of this paper, published in the Journal of School Choice, for information that allows one to calculate whether any two states are statistically tied.)
Rankings and Results
The strongest academic performance from charter-school students is in No. 1-ranked Alaska, at 32 percent of a standard deviation above the average charter score nationwide, followed by Colorado and Massachusetts, then by New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, and New Jersey (see Figure 1). The lowest-ranked charter performance is in Hawaii, at 54 percent of a standard deviation below the national average, followed by Tennessee, Michigan, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.
Alaska’s high ranking for charter-school student achievement may seem surprising given its low ranking for NAEP performance by all public-school students. In a 2019 analysis by the Urban Institute, Alaska ranked at or near the bottom in both studying and math in grades 4 and 8. It is possible that results are skewed in some way by the challenge of controlling for Alaska’s distinctive indigenous population, which makes up about 20 percent of K–12 students. However, Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby found Alaska among the top three states in an analysis conducted on scores in 2003. Further, Alaska’s charter achievement ranks seventh when no adjustments are made for background characteristics. Charter student performance in Alaska seems to deserve its ranking in the top tier.
In looking at the five lowest-ranking states, Hawaii’s very poor performance is skewed downward by NAEP’s incorporation of indigenous Hawaiian population and other Pacific Islanders into the broad “Asian” category, a sizeable share of the charter student population (see “Does Hawaii Make the Case for Religious Charters?,” features, Winter 2024). If the analysis is limited to the years 2011 to 2019, indigenous Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders can be classified separately. When this is done for those years, Hawaii’s performance shifts to –35 percent of a standard deviation, and the state’s score resembles that of Tennessee.
We then estimate differences in test-score performance between students of various racial and ethnic groups in each state, while still adjusting for other background characteristics. States vary in the degree to which the performance of white charter students exceeds that of Black and Hispanic ones (see Figures 2 and 3). The gap between Black and white charter-school students’ test scores is more than a full standard deviation, or roughly equivalent to three-and-one-half years of learning, in D.C. and five states: Missouri, Wisconsin, Delaware, Michigan, and Maryland. By comparison, that gap is equivalent to about two-and-one-half years of learning in Oklahoma, Arizona, New York, Florida, and Illinois.
We find the largest score differences between white and Hispanic students in D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, and Massachusetts. States with the least divergence in white-Hispanic scores are Oklahoma, Louisiana, Illinois, Florida, and Ohio, where scores differ by roughly one to one-and-a-third years of learning.
Oklahoma and Florida have among the smallest disparities between white charter students and both Black and Hispanic charter students. By contrast, D.C. and Delaware have exceptionally large differences between those student groups. These differences may be a function of which students opt to enroll in charter schools or some other mechanism not captured by observed student characteristics. Or they may reflect divergent charter practices.
Comparison to Statewide Rankings
How closely do the PEPG state rankings mirror similar efforts to rank states based on student achievement across all public schools? We might expect strong correlations, as charter student performance could be affected by a state’s educational climate, including family and community support for schools and students as well as the talents and training of its teachers.
To explore this possibility, we calculate the relationship between PEPG rankings for charter students with state rankings made by the Urban Institute for student achievement at all public schools. Importantly, the comparison is for performance on the same tests for the same period, and the adjustments for family background characteristics are virtually identical.
The rankings for charters and for all public-school students are only modestly correlated (see Figure 4). Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, and Florida have similarly high rankings on both. At the other end of the distribution, California sits at the 24th position in both standings. But the rankings for other states differ sharply. Texas, Pennsylvania, and Indiana are ranked 2, 10, and 12 on the Urban Institute list but land at 15, 31, and 20, respectively, in the PEPG ranking. Conversely, Oklahoma is ranked 6th and Utah is ranked 9th in the PEPG rankings, but these states rank 21st and 32nd, respectively, on the Urban Institute’s list. In short, charter-school performance is not simply a function of the educational environment of the state as a whole.
A Close Look at CREDO
Another state-level ranking of charter schools warrants detailed discussion. In a June 2023 report, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University ranked 29 states by the academic performance of their charter schools from 2014 to 2019. This ranking is based on state test results and compares charter students’ performance, adjusted for prior-year test scores and student background characteristics, to that of students at nearby district schools. This average difference approach to assessing charter performance diverges significantly from the PEPG yardstick, which ranks states by the average level of charter performance, adjusted for student background.
CREDO rankings would nonetheless resemble the ones reported by PEPG if average student achievement were identical at all district schools throughout a state and the country as a whole. Since that is not the case, CREDO rankings are affected as much by scores at district schools as by scores at charters. This is not a mere hypothetical possibility. CREDO finds that test scores for Black students at charter schools showed they “had 35 days more growth in a school year in studying and 29 days in math” relative to comparable students in nearby district schools, and Hispanic students “grew an extra 30 days in studying and 19 additional days in math.”
Meanwhile, white charter students do no better in studying than white students at district schools, and they perform worse in math by 24 days of learning. CREDO also finds better outcomes for charter schools in cities than suburbs—test scores for students at urban charters showed 29 additional days of growth per year in studying and 28 additional days in math. Suburban charters did not perform significantly better than district schools in math but had “stronger growth in reading” amounting to 14 additional days of learning.
These findings could indicate that Black, Hispanic, and urban students attend higher-quality charter schools than those available to white and suburban students. But an alternative interpretation is more likely: White and suburban students have access to higher-quality district schools than those available to Blacks, Hispanics, and city residents. CREDO’s state ranking is useful in considering how the presence of charters affects the choices available to students in each state, but it does not order states by the performance levels of charter students, as the PEPG rankings do.
Impacts of Innovations
The specifics of each state’s charter law and regulations differ substantially, helping the charter sector live up to the “laboratory” principle. This sets the stage for a variety of comparisons looking at which aspects of charter school governance might contribute to student success.
For example, the type of agency granted the power to authorize charters ranges from the state board of education to local school districts to mayoral offices. Accountability requirements vary from tight, ongoing monitoring to nearly none. The saturation of the charter sector is similarly diverse—in states like Arizona, California, and Florida, 12 percent or more students attend a charter compared to 3 percent or less in Maryland, Mississippi, and New Hampshire. Charter funding differs as well, both among and within states, based on revenues and regulations set by federal, state, and local agencies and authorizers. In 2019, charter-school revenues per pupil ranged from $27,825 in D.C. to $6,890 in Oklahoma.
On some widely debated topics, we find little support for either side of the dialogue. For example, we find no higher levels of achievement in states with a larger percentage of public-school students attending charters. Nor do we find a correlation between charter student achievement and the age of the charter school, whether a state permits collective bargaining, or the level of per-pupil funding charter schools receive within a state.
We do find differences when looking at some of the innovative features of charter schools, including authorizing agencies, management structures, and whether schools have an academic or programmatic specialization.
For example, charter student performance varies with the type of authorizer that granted its charter. Students whose charter schools are authorized by a state education agency earn higher scores on NAEP than students whose schools were authorized by school districts and comparable local agencies. Compared to charter schools authorized by a state education agency, student achievement is 9 percent of a standard deviation lower at charter schools authorized by local education agencies like school districts, 10 percent lower at charter schools authorized by independent statewide agencies, 15 percent lower at schools authorized by non-education entities like a mayor’s office, and 19 percent lower at charter schools authorized by higher education institutions.
These results should not be interpreted as showing a causal connection between type of authorizer and student outcomes. Still, it might be noted that state education agencies have decades of experience at overseeing educational systems, an advantage not matched by any other type of authorizer. Local school districts do not authorize as effective charters as do state offices, but they outperform agencies that have had no prior experience in the field of education. Perhaps Helen Keller was right when she said, “Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened . . . and success achieved.”
We also find notable differences in student achievement between schools based on their management model. These fall into three categories: freestanding or standalone schools; schools run by nonprofit charter management organizations or networks like KIPP Foundation and BASIS Charter Schools; and schools run by for-profit education management organizations, such as Academia and ACCEL Schools.
Some 55 percent of the students in our trial attend freestanding, independent charter schools—the classic charter type, led by a small team, that is one of the thousand flowers expected to bloom. Another 23 percent of students attend charters that are part of nonprofit networks or management organizations, and 22 percent of the trial are at schools run by for-profit entities.
Compared to students at for-profit and freestanding, independent charters, students at charters that are part of a nonprofit network score 11 to 16 percent of a standard deviation higher on NAEP. This may be because networked charters benefit from an association with a larger entity, or perhaps because successful charters expand beyond a single school.
Why do students at for-profit schools earn relatively lower scores on NAEP than at networked charters? For-profit organizations may launch charters where circumstances are more problematic, or they may find operations more challenging when faced with heavy political criticism and threats of closure and government regulation. Or possibly the profit motive is indeed inconsistent with higher student performance, as critics have alleged.
Our main purpose in ranking states by the performance of their charter students is to focus public and policymaker attention on the provision of high-quality schools, the purpose of charter legislation from its very beginning. Our second purpose is to supplement current state-level rankings of the charter-school environment and focus attention on outcomes, not simply state policies and procedures. Although previous rankings document the variety of environments in which charter schools operate, they do not report student achievement measured by a national test common to public schools across the country.
However, the PEPG rankings are not the last word on charter-school quality. We are not able to track year-by-year trends in charter quality within states, as the number of charter student test scores for any given year are too few for precise estimation. We have no information on student performance at virtual charters, as NAEP only monitors student performance at brick-and-mortar school sites. Also, these rankings are based on assessments of student performances in 4th and 8th grade, which excludes any insights as to charter contributions to early childhood and preschool education or high school or career and technical training programs. Finally, NAEP data are observational, not experimental, so causal inferences are not warranted.
It should also be kept in mind that these data are based upon an 11-year period ending in 2019, the eve of a pandemic that closed many charter and district schools for more than a year. Student performance was dramatically affected by the event, and charter enrollment appears to have increased substantially since then. The data reported here stand as a baseline against which future measurement of charter performance in the aftermath of that event may be compared—an especially important measure given the continued growth of the sector.
Paul E. Peterson is a professor of government at Harvard University, director of its Program on Education Policy and Governance, and senior editor at Education Next. M. Danish Shakeel is professor and the director of the E. G. West Centre for Education Policy at the University of Buckingham, U.K. An unabridged version of this paper has been published by the Journal of School Choice (2023).
Last updated November 14, 2023
Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:01:00 -0600en-UStext/htmlhttps://www.educationnext.org/nations-charter-report-card-first-ever-state-ranking-charter-student-performance-naep/Arizona opinion: More post-secondary education is vital
The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
After a decade of progress increasing postsecondary enrollment, Arizona is suddenly headed in the wrong direction. Less than half of accurate high school graduates enroll in some form of training or higher education within 12 months of graduation.
As recently as six years ago, Arizona was making progress, but the number fell precipitously in 2020 and 2021, dropping below 50% for the first time since 2010. Even before the pandemic, five-year trends of postsecondary enrollment were flat or declining for high school graduates.
Going to a postsecondary institution within a year of high school graduation is a key indicator that students will earn a degree or certificate that will advance their career and contribute to the state’s economic growth.
If Arizona does not create a culture of increasing education after high school, we will never meet the Achieve60AZ goal of ensuring that 60% of Arizonans have a college degree or certificate by 2030. That statewide goal was created in part to support Arizona’s workforce and economy. To meet the goal, now just seven years away, we need 500,000 more adults to earn a postsecondary degree or certificate.
People are also reading…
The risk is real. If Arizona does not have an ample educated workforce, businesses will relocate in other states where more adults have certificates, degrees, and other credentials earned after high school.
Several states are far ahead of Arizona. Top states send 70% of high school graduates directly into postsecondary education and training, which is the agreed-upon goal for post-high school enrollment in the Arizona Education Progress Meter. New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and California all send 58% or more students to higher education.
While Arizona’s economic and population growth has outpaced these neighboring states, efforts to prepare future generations are unlikely to sustain that growth. It’s especially concerning that students from racially and ethnically diverse populations have both the lowest enrollment rates in college and the sharpest declines in training program sign-ups.
Only 41.3% of Hispanic graduates enroll in postsecondary education but comprise more than half of Arizona’s K-12 population. This trend cannot continue if we are to build a future educated workforce.
Earlier this year, Education Forward Arizona and Helios Education Foundation released groundbreaking research that suggests if we increase postsecondary education enrollment by 20%, Arizona stands to benefit from more than $5 billion in annual gains attributable to factors like higher lifetime earnings, improved health, and increased workforce activities.
The converse is also true: When high school graduates don’t enroll in college or training programs, they often take the types of jobs that will be the first to be automated, they don’t reap the financial benefits for themselves, and consequently, they are less likely to contribute to the state’s economic health or to live healthy lives. All of Arizona suffers.
The solution is to invest in programs and services that build an ecosystem oriented toward post-high school learning. There are actions we can take, right now, to get back on track.
One of the most effective strategies is dual enrollment programs, where students enroll in college classes while still in high school. Research documents that dual enrollment students are more likely to attend college, have a higher postsecondary grade point average, and complete a degree program.
The Arizona legislature has allocated $15.5 million to expand dual enrollment that will prioritize low-income students least likely to have access to this game-changing opportunity to build their confidence that they have what it takes to succeed in college.
As important as strategies like dual enrollment are, the truth is we can no longer afford to consider our state’s attainment crisis to be just an education issue. It’s bigger than that. It is about creating a strong economy, a workforce with 21st Century skills, a vibrant social fabric, and the physical health of our citizens.
Arizona’s business and postsecondary education communities must come together to create a statewide commitment to increasing education and training beyond high school. Over the coming months, Education Forward Arizona will be working with the business and education communities to identify priority strategies to increase participation in postsecondary programs.
We all stand to gain by doing so. Students and their families will reap the rewards of higher lifetime earnings. And when they do, they will contribute to a more prosperous economy that all Arizonans will enjoy.
Rich Nickel is President and CEO of Education Forward Arizona, which advocates for and acts on education improvements that advance the quality of life for all Arizonans.
Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!
Thu, 02 Nov 2023 02:18:00 -0500entext/htmlhttps://tucson.com/opinion/column/arizona-opinion-more-post-secondary-education-is-vital/article_2f10d732-7768-11ee-9b8f-b768c3cdae5e.htmlArizona education tax violates state Constitution but will stand for now
This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.
Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:59:00 -0500en-UStext/htmlhttps://www.courthousenews.com/arizona-education-tax-violates-state-constitution-but-will-stand-for-now/Phoenix-area school boards are shifting focus toward student outcomesYour browser is not supported | azcentral.com
azcentral.com wants to ensure the best experience for all of our readers, so we built our site to take advantage of the latest technology, making it faster and easier to use.
Unfortunately, your browser is not supported. Please obtain one of these browsers for the best experience on azcentral.com
Wed, 25 Oct 2023 01:01:00 -0500en-UStext/htmlhttps://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2023/10/25/phoenix-area-school-boards-are-shifting-focus-toward-student-outcomes/71050738007/Arizona gives 84 Pima County schools A's, no F's
More than 80 Pima County schools earned A’s and no schools here are failing in new letter grades announced by the Arizona Department of Education.
The only failing traditional school in the county as of last year, Safford K-8 in Tucson Unified School District, improved to a C in the 2022-23 grades announced Friday.
According to the data, 83 Pima County public schools (including traditional and charter schools) earned A’s, 77 received B’s, 47 got C’s and 18 received D’s.
The state education department uses letter grades as an accountability model for school performance. Parameters are year-to-year student academic growth and proficiency in English language arts, mathematics and science; the proficiency and academic growth of English language learners; indicators that elementary students are ready for success in high school and that high school students are ready for success in a career or in higher education; and high school graduation rates.
People are also reading…
Notably, all of Tanque Verde Unified School District’s schools received A grades. Vail Unified School District earned an overall A, with only one of its schools not getting the top grade (Vail Blended Learning, which received a B).
Catalina Foothills Unified School District also earned an A overall. When grades were released, all but one of its schools received the top grade (Catalina Foothills High School got a B). Catalina Foothills High School's grade was later changed to an A because of a technical error on the state's end.
Overall B grades were received by Amphitheater Public Schools and Flowing Wells, Marana and Tucson unified school districts.
Sunnyside Unified School District’s overall grade was a C.
Improving schools in TUSD
Nine Tucson Unified School District schools were on the district’s list for improvement plans due to lackluster letter grades in 2021-2022. Several of them did receive higher grades this year.
TUSD’s Blenman Elementary, Booth Fickett K-8, Doolen Middle, Manzo Elementary, Pistor Middle, Safford K-8, Steele Elementary, Tully Elementary and Valencia Middle were up for improvement plans.
Blenman Elementary received a D last year. In 2022-2023 the school earned a B.
Booth Fickett’s D grade from 2021-2022 held steady in 2022-2023, as did Pistor’s.
Doolen went from a D last year to a C this year, along with Steele, Tully and Valencia.
Manzo Elementary School earned a C in 2022-2023, up from a D in 2021-2022.
Worsening schools in TUSD
Several TUSD schools received D marks in 2022-2023, dropping from last year.
Cavett Elementary School dropped its B grade from 2021-2022 to a D in 2022-2023. So did Hollinger K-8 School, Irene Erickson Elementary School and Palo Verde High Magnet School.
Pueblo Gardens Elementary received a D this year after earning a C in 2021-2022.
Raul Grijalva Elementary School dropped to a D grade in 2022-2023 after getting a C in 2021-2022. Secrist Middle School and Catalina High School also dropped from C to D.
Palo Verde High Magnet School went from a B in 2021-2022 to a D.
For more info
Information on a school’s overall characteristics can be found on the school’s report card at azreportcards.azed.gov.
These statistics do not include alternative or hybrid schools.
Schools can appeal their letter grades, but must do so by Nov. 15, 2023.
The state-given letter grades aren’t the only thing to consider when choosing a school, a news release from the Arizona Department of Education advised. Beyond quantitative measures — like the grading system — qualitative elements to consider include extracurricular activities, school size and the types of activities a student is interested in.