accountability

Is the Bell Tolling for CCSS?

Eduflack accountability, assessment, CCSS, high-stakes testing

“Is this the beginning of the end for our caped crusader?”

Yesterday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott ordered the State of Florida to withdraw from Common Core State Standards assessments and its financial relationship with PARCC.  For those who have been watching Florida, this should be no surprise.  Scott is concerned with his upcoming re-election.  He is reading the tea leaves, particularly with Republicans, that CCSS are unpopular (just look at the growing number of anti-CCSS state groups on Facebook).  So for a governor with poor poll numbers, it seems natural that he would take a move that would shore up anti-federal intrusion Republicans who comforting anti-high-stakes teaching Democrats and independents.
So no, we shouldn’t be shocked that Florida’s governor wants out of CCSS testing.  But in the online tsunami following his decree, one important piece was overlooked.  He didn’t call for Florida to pull out of CCSS itself (yet).  Scott has just folded the state’s cards in the assessment game.
The more troubling development seems to be happening west of the Sunshine State in Louisiana.  In the Pelican State, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is starting to raise concerns with the CCSS themselves.  Using phrases like “federalized curriculum,” Jindal is taking issue with the very standards he helped champion in the early days.  Now we have Jindal talking about the need for “Louisiana, not Washington, DC, standards.”
While it makes for some nice red-meat rhetoric, Jindal knows better.  These aren’t DC standards.  These are national standards, developed in large part by the states themselves, to raise the bar for all kids and help make them all college and career ready, at least in English and math.  And if Jindal really wants Louisiana standards, he better look back to the downright pathetic standards the state had just a decade ago, where the goal seemed to be providing all Louisiana students access to a mediocre public education, if they were lucky.
We’ve now reached the point where we are playing some dangerous political games with classroom learning.  Scott and Jindal may be scoring points on the campaign trail (or on Jindal’s hopeful road to the White House), but they are both being disingenuous about the issues.  Higher standards are important for our more transient student population, and are necessary if we expect all students to graduate from high school college and career ready.  And like it or not, we do need assessments that actually measure student progress against those higher standards.
Both of these politicians have their own reasons for doing what they are doing and saying what they are saying. But let’s not read too much into these announcements.  No states are required to sign onto CCSS, and Louisiana wouldn’t be the only state not to participate (just ask friends in Texas, Minnesota, or Virginia.)  And of the 40-some states that are part of CCSS, they aren’t required to be part of the CCSS assessments.  The two consortia are there to help reduce costs on testing by creating a common test that states could then enhance to meet their own needs.  If a state like Florida wants to spend significantly more to keep its own test, that is its right.
No, this isn’t the beginning of the end of CCSS.  While many “sky is falling” folks will see this as such (particularly those who have distain for CCSS in the first place), this is just the latest bump in the road.  Let’s actually get the aligned curriculum in the classroom, let’s give teachers content-based PD, and let’s get the tests up and running before we condemn CCSS to its untimely demise.

Cracking the Books at the SDEs

Eduflack accountability

In recent weeks, we’ve seen public polls from PDK and others, where those surveyed claim that the public schools are vastly underfunded.  At the same time, though, we see that per-pupil expenditures — particularly at our largest urban districts — have never been higher than they are today.  Somewhere, there has to be a disconnect between the actual costs of public education and the perception of how our financial commitment is falling short.

Earlier this month, the Cato Institute released an interesting report that looks at how well our nation’s state department of education share information on how taxpayer dollars are actually being spent on the public schools.  The study — Cracking the Books: How Well Do State Departments of Education Report Public School Spending — casts a valuable spotlight on government transparency when it comes to school spending.
And how do our states stack up?  Only two states — New Mexico and South Dakota — score in the A range, garnering an A and an A-minus respectively.
Two states earn Bs (Washington and Texas) while three earn B-minues (Nebraska, Kentucky, and California).
What’s far more disturbing, though, is that 18 states earn an F or an F-minus for their transparency when it comes to school budgets.
The Fs?  Indiana, Delaware, North Carolina, Wyoming, Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, South Carolina, and West Virginia all earn the F.
But the bottom of the list is dominated by states that scored those strong F-minuses.  The “honor” roll includes: Missouri, Connecticut, Oregon, Ohio, Oklahoma, Nevada, Iowa, Hawaii, and Alaska.
While some may take issue with the report or the conclusions it reaches, it offers an important snapshot in the discussion of school spending and budgeting.  As Cato states:

Half of all states report a “per pupil expenditures” figure that leaves out major cost items such as capital expenditures, thereby significantly understating what is actually spent. Alaska does not even report per pupil expenditure figures at all.

Eight states fail to provide any data on capital expenditures on their education department websites.  Ten states lack any data on average employee salaries and 41 states fail to provide any data on average employee benefits.

When the state education departments provide incomplete or misleading data, they deprive taxpayers of the ability to make informed decisions about public school funding.  At a time when state and local budgets are severely strained, it is crucial that spending decisions reflect sound and informed judgment.
Cato raises some interesting issues for all to consider.  As states start moving to a common chart of accounts system, some of these areas may be addressed.  But until we have full transparency and complete accounting for all the dollars spent, it is hard for anyone — even the most knowledgeable person — to assess if our schools are properly funded or not.

Duncan: ESEA “Outmoded and Broken”

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, Arne Duncan, ESEA, NCLB

For those keeping score, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was slated for reauthorization in early 2007.  These acts are supposed to be reupped every five years.  And like clockwork, we tend to forget about the clock and leave existing laws in place long after their expiration date.

The five-year cycle allows us to recognize that the work changes around us.  The K-12 education space is vastly different today than it was when the law was written in 2001.  From the stronger role of technology in the classroom to the growing needs of addressing a growing ELL population, circumstances change.  The Federal law governing our public schools should change as well.
But it has now been a dozen years since the current law was written.  We should be preparing for our second revision, and not still waiting for a re-up that is more than six years past due.  But we wait.
A few years ago, Eduflack opined that EdSec Arne Duncan didn’t need reauthorization.  That the Administration could and would adjust Federal education law through the introduction of new programs (like Race to the Top) and through greater flexibility to NCLB (as we’ve seen with the NCLB waivers and the waiver waivers).  And to date, Duncan and company have done a good job playing the hand they’ve been dealt, recognizing that Congress was not looking for another major bipartisan lift on education policy, so one just lives with the law that brought ’em.
Sure, we’ve seen both the House and the Senate debate and even pass some reauthorization legislation.  But the differences between the two chambers has been significant.  And there seems be a lack of urgency in either side of the Hill to really move major legislation that will improve educational outcomes and opportunities for our kids.
Today, though, Duncan took to the pages of The Washington Post to call for a refocus on ESEA and a demand for its reauthorization.  Taking aim at a recent House bill out of sync with Obama/Duncan priorities, the EdSec is using his bully pulpit to refocus the spotlight on our need for ESEA reauthorization.
Some of the highlights include:
The vision of American education that President Obama and I share starts in the classroom – with fully engaged students, creative and inspiring teachers, and the support and resources needed to get every child prepared for college and career.  Students in our poorest communities should enjoy learning opportunities like those in our wealthiest communities.  Zip code, race, disability and family income should not limit students’ opportunities or reduce expectations for them  The progress of U.S. students should remain transparent.

Washington’s role is to protect children at risk and promote opportunity for all.  The federal government is not, and will never be, in the business of telling states or schools what or how to teach.  But it cannot shirk its role of ensuring that schools and students meet the high bar that prepares them for the real world.  History shows that, without some kind of accountability, states and districts do not always need the needs of the most vulnerable students.
He continues:
In the months ahead, I will ask Congress to listen to those doing the real work of education change.  Principals, teachers, governors, state education chiefs, superintendents, parents and students themselves know what is and isn’t working. They can guide us to a better law.

Lawmakers in both chambers and parties should agree on a bill that raises the bar, protects children, supports and improves effective teaching and school leadership, and provides flexibility and supports good work at the state and local level.  We should give them the resources and the flexibility and make sure we all are accountable for the job we are doing on behalf of our children.

We are fighting not just for a strong education system but also for our country.  A good law is part of that fight.
Kudos for Duncan and the folks down on New Jersey Avenue for seeking to regain congressional attention on ESEA reauthorization.  But will it help?  With issues like accountability, testing, and Common Core State Standards under attack from both the left and the right, it seems unlikely that Congress will find the gumption to take a meaningful stand and do the right thing here.  But we can hope, can’t we?

Some Inequitable Food for Thought

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, CCSS, international benchmarking
We are often quick to look at how the United States stacks up to other countries around the world when it comes to educational performance.  We scrutinize PISA and TIMSS numbers.  We ask what Finland and Singapore and Korea have that we don’t.  And some of us even look for positives in a tapestry that often lacks a silver lining.
But some recent studies from OECD provide some important data the education community should be scrutinizing, particularly since it further spotlights the inequities in these here United States and how we continue to slip in some of those international comparisons.
So some inequitable food for thought:
When it comes to income inequality, the United States ranks fifth.  We offer more significant gaps than countries like Spain, Greece, Estonia, and France.  But at least our gap is narrower than those in Mexico and Chile.
In terms of literacy, we again place fifth.  Worse than Austria and the Czech Republic, but better than the Slovak Republic, Mexico, and Sweden.
When it comes to infant mortality rates, only Turkey and Mexico have higher rates than the United States.
We are tops in one category — the percentage of single-parent families.  Estonia and Great Britain (numbers two and three) have their work cut out for them if they want to knock us off the top of the list.
Why do we highlight these numbers, particularly as others are buzzing about declining test scores in New York and the impact of bringing Common Core State Standards online?  Because it is all interconnected.  And its a cryin’ shame that too many folks fail to recognize how income disparities or household structures impact student academic performance.

The Beginning of the End for CCSS? Hardly

Eduflack accountability, assessment, CCSS, Yack
There are those who believe that the recent resignation of Florida Education Commissioner Tony Bennett signals the beginning of the end for Common Core State Standards and all those who believe in it.  They are likely the same naysayers who believe in things that go bump in the night.
But the recent actions in Florida and Georgia do raise some significant questions about WHAT we need to focus on with our ongoing push toward CCSS.  Today’s Eduflack Yack opines on the issue that really matters — HOW we fill the gaps between identifying the standards and testing against it.

Everything is “High Stakes”

Eduflack accountability, ACT, assessment, CCSS, College Board, high-stakes testing

Student assessment has been under assault for years now.  And that assault usually begins with the attack on “high-stakes” tests.

We hated No Child Left Behind because of its high-stakes tests, with student assessments determining whether schools were making adequate yearly progress and ultimately if the school doors would stay open or not.
We hated the current batch of end-of-year “high-stakes” tests offered by the states, particularly now that the student performance numbers are being used by some states (and encouraged by others through NCLB waivers) in their teacher and principal evaluation process.
And we hate the “high-stakes” Common Core Assessments, whenever they come on line, as they blend our fears from both NCLB and state tests and wrap them up into one easy package.
Today, The Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss has applied the “high-stakes” label to another target — the SAT and the ACT.  In writing about how Common Core State Standards could <SHUDDER> actually have an impact in all states, even in those that haven’t adopted CCSS, she notes that “Students in every state take the high-stakes college admissions exams, the SAT and the ACT.”
Eduflack understands “high stakes” is a powerful term and it can raise the hackles of everyone from the left who oppose stricter accountability measures to the right which recoils from a greater federal footprint on the local classroom.  And he gets that Strauss is using the phrase as fighting words, hoping to generate continued negative feelings toward CCSS.  But sometimes, can’t a test just be a test?
Aren’t there some assessments that should have some stakes attached?  Shouldn’t high school exit exams be “high stakes” as they determine whether a student has earned a high school diploma or not?  And shouldn’t we want the SAT and ACT to have stakes, as they determine who gains entrance to a four-year college, particularly when the costs of college are about as high stakes as they come?
Tests have consequences.  And all tests should have stakes attached.  Driver’s exams are “high stakes” as they determine if you get a license and have access to the freedom that comes with it.  Eye exams are “high stakes,” particularly when anything less than 20/20 will keep you from becoming a pilot in the Armed Forces.  DNA tests are “high stakes” as they determine one’s family lineage, an essential to knowing your history and your health future. The new Google/Bing taste tests are “high stakes,” as they could determine marketing campaigns and huge swings in search usership. 
So if there are no stakes attached, and some seem to advocate, is it even a test?  

AFT: Parents Resist Reforms

Eduflack accountability, AFT, Parents, teachers

Parents oppose closing low-performing schools, reject the notion of moving resources from traditional public schools to charters, and are resistant to extending the school day, according to a new survey to be released by the American Federation of Teachers today, and previewed by Lyndsey Layton in today’s Washington Post.

According to Layton, the results of a poll of more than 1,000 parents will be a featured part of AFT President Randi Weingarten’s address today at the national AFT TEACH Conference.  Among the highlights:
  • 61% oppose closing low-performing schools and reassigning students to a different school
  • More than 75% oppose reducing compensation for teachers or cutting resources for the classroom while increasing spending on charter schools
  • 58% did not approve of officials lengthening the school day (while a third thought it was a good idea)
  • 56% oppose giving tax dollars to families to pay for private school tuition (better known as vouchers), while 41% approve
  • A majority say too much learning in the classroom has been sacrificed in order to accommodate state tests
Layton also offers this nugget, to be part of Weingarten’s prepared remarks today:
Decades of top-down edicts, mass school closures, privatization and test fixation with sanctions, instead of support, haven’t moved the needle — not in the right direction, at least … You’ve heard their refrain, competition, closings, choice.  Underlying that is a belief that disruption is good and stability is bad.
It sounds like Weingarten is bringing her A game this week and looking to rally the troops as they prepare for Common Core implementation, NCLB waivers, ESEA reauthorization, and the next generation of reforms.  
We’ll look for other key ideas when the full text of the speech is publicly available.  In the meantime, I’m sure many of those closers and privatizers and test fixaters are sharpening their tongues …

An End to Compulsory Education?

Eduflack accountability, CCSS, Parents

A few years ago, we had a number of states that looked to increase the “drop-out age” in their states, under the premise that if we keep kids in high school until the age of 17, we would increase the odds that they would complete their k-12 experience and earn their high school diploma.

Now it seems the pendulum is swinging in the complete opposite direction. Earlier this week, Utah State Senator Aaron Osmond offered up a blog post under the title “Accountability for Parents + Respect for Teachers.”  A great title and a great premise we should all get behind.
But the headline is a little misleading.  Senator Osmond used the platform to call for an end to compulsory education, suggesting that moves in the late 1800s to require all kids to gain an education was the beginning of the end of western civilization.
Some of the “nuggets” from his musings include:

“Before 1890, public
education in America was viewed as an opportunity—not a legal obligation.”

“Then came compulsory
education. Our State began requiring that all parents must send their children
to public school for fear that some children would not be educated because of
an irresponsible parent. Since that day, the proverbial pendulum has swung in
the wrong direction.”

“Our teachers and schools
have been forced to become surrogate parents, expected to do everything from
behavioral counseling, to providing adequate nutrition, to teaching sex
education, as well as ensuring full college and career readiness.”

“Actively engaged parents
sometimes feel that the public school system, and even some teachers, are
insensitive to the unique needs and challenges of their children and are
unwilling or unable to give their child the academic attention they need
because of an overburdened education system, obligated by law to be all things
to all people.”

“We need to restore the
expectation that parents are primarily responsible for the educational success
of their own children. That begins with restoring the parental right to decide
if and when a child will go to public school. In a country founded on the
principles of personal freedom and unalienable rights, no parent should be
forced by the government to send their child to school under threat of fines
and jail time.”

And if that isn’t enough for you, he offers up a support document, The End to Compulsory Education – A Freedom-Based Argument.  That doc is written by a gentleman named Oak Norton who, among other things, heads a group called Utahns Against Common Core.
In this day and age when we know a k-12 education (and some postsecondary) is necessary to success, when we know far too many kids rely on the formal school system to provide them needed social services, when we know we should be investing more time and resources in expanding formal pre-K options, when we know that we should be working to level the playing field and ensure equity for all students, are we really to the point where we want to pull all our kids off the field entirely, and let them fend for themselves in a family-led Lord of the Flies education scenario?
Of all of the problems facing our modern society and all of the challenges and opportunities before our K-12 structure, has ending compulsory education risen high enough on the list that it now warrants state senate review and consideration?
 

Promoting Assessment Literacy

Eduflack accountability, assessment

Testing.  For some, it is the ultimate measure of public education, the rubric by which we determine if our nation, state, district, school, teacher, and student is making the grade.

For others, it is the embodiment of evil.  Bubble sheets.  High-stakes tests.  Stressed students.  Maligned teachers.
The fact of the matter is that testing is largely misunderstood, even by those who can most benefit from it.  Frustrations over assessment efforts under NCLB has led a groundswell of folks to condemn assessment in general.  But in doing so, we are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.  We are forgetting all of the good that comes from assessment and how it can empower educators when they are given the right data and the power to do something with it.
Hopefully, we will soon see this dialogue start to change.  This week, the Northwest Evaluation Association released a new online tool to engage teachers and encourage a meaningful, fact-based discussion of assessment, its uses, and its impact.  Meet Assessment Literacy.
Why is this new site so important?  Let’s face facts.  Despite all of the talk about testing, many lack a real understanding of the topic.  Some are quick to condemn “assessment” without acknowledging the differences between summative assessment (those state tests we all love) and formative or interim assessments.  We bristle at student test scores being used as part of the teacher evaluation process, but gloss over how meaningful assessment data can be used to improve the teaching and learning process in the classroom.
Anti-testing forces may want to be believe that assessment will go away, that continued discussion of the “high-stakes” variety and recent testing mis-steps by companies like Pearson will do away with testing, but let’s be frank for a second.  Assessment has long been a part of our public education tapestry, and it isn’t going anywhere.  It also can have a valuable and powerful impact on how teachers teach, how students learn, and how all are better for it.  Rather than fighting a “testing or no testing” fight, we should be focusing our efforts on the quality of assessments and their proper applications.
Assessment Literacy starts making progress toward that point.  Developed by and focused on classroom educators, the site provides a fact-based look at assessment and its application.  From discussions on how tests are made, narratives on how major national policy issues address assessment, and a wealth of resources for educators on the topic, the site really strives to get every educator “assessment literate.”
We are in much need of a thoughtful, engaging discussion on assessment and its future in the American classroom.  And we need educators front and center in that discussion.  Assessment Literacy starts that dialogue.  
(Full disclosure: Eduflack has worked with a number of organizations focused on assessment and testing, including NWEA.)

Wow, We Did Put Reading First After All

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, NAEP, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Five or eight years ago, after Reading First (and NCLB ) had been the law of the land, districts were implementing scientifically based reading research, and publishers were revising their curricular materials to meet the new rigor of RF, we started to see an uptick in student reading performance.  Test scores were on the rise, and they were on the rise for all students.

At the time, RF haters declared that any bump in student achievement was the result of kinder, gentler instructional policies implemented in the mid-1990s.  There simply was no way we could see the results of Reading First in a matter of years.
A few years after that, we again saw modest upticks in student reading performance for all demographics.  This time, the haters declared that it was further proof that RF was a failure, as it hadn’t closed the achievement gaps yet.  Forget that we saw increases for Black, Latino, and white students.  RF was about closing the gaps, not boosting the performance.
So what is going to be the argument this week?  The latest NAEP scores are out, and what do we see?  Reading performance for both 9 and 13 year olds is up.  For those students who have only been taught reading in the public schools since RF has been the law of the land, we are seeing an improvement in reading scores.  And we are seeing the gaps close.  The Washington Post and USA Today have the full story in today’s editions.
Without question, there are a lot of people who opposed directing the public schools to teach young children to read through methods that were proven effective.  People resisted doing what works when it comes to literacy.  But these latest numbers from The Nation’s Report Card don’t lie.  Like it or not, Reading First worked.  As a result of ensuring that curriculum and PD and instructional materials and assessments and interventions were all tied to proven research and were all based on what was most effective in teaching children to read, we are seeing improvement in student reading performance.  And we are seeing it across all demographics, as we actually begin to narrow our horrific achievement gaps.
Do we still have a lot of work to do to eliminate those gaps and get the third of fourth graders unable to read at grade level up to par?  Absolutely.  But clearly, we are headed in the right direction.  Educators across the nation have invested the time and resources to utilizing the proven effective and getting kids reading.  And out nation’s middle schoolers are now better for it.
Haters will continue to hate, and point out that RF is essentially dead and classrooms have moved on from it.  But we can’t deny that SBRR (until Common Core comes on line) continues to drive the development of instructional materials, the supports offered teachers, and the standards we set for our schools.  And that these students — today’s third and seventh graders — are the products of the NCLB environment and an SBRR focus.  
Who’da thunk?  We actually did put reading first, and we are no seeing the results of all of that hard work.