AYP

Will Real Formative Assessment Please Stand Up?

Eduflack AYP, high-stakes testing, NAEP, NCLB

As Eduflack has previously noted, the issues of accountability and assessment have risen to the top of the education reform heap.  Thanks to the Aspen Institute and others, we seem to have consensus — at least with education and business leaders — that accountability should lead the day.  And to get there, we need strong, reliable, replicable assessments that effectively measure the effectiveness of our programs, our schools, and out students.

Earlier this month, Scott Cech did a piece in Education Week reflecting on internal disagreements within the testing industry on the issue of “formative assessments.”  (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/09/17/04formative_ep.h28.html)   The piece is an interesting one, particularly in light of recent focus by major school districts on Response to Intervention, or RTI.  Like issues before it, education companies throughout the nation see RTI as a pending blank check, a major money-making program for those who can sell an answer to the problem.
While Cech’s piece raises some good questions on the issue of assessment and the role of both corporations and teachers in implementing meaningful assessment measures in the classroom, the piece — and the questions it raises — is being used by some to celebrate the end of accountability and is, unfortunately, being used to trumpet the demise of modern-day assessment models.
Because of issues like RTI, we have seen some very strong formative assessment models developed.  Just take a look at the investments made by organizations such as Wireless Generation, and you can see what high-quality, high-value assessment models can look like.  Focusing on pre- and post-assessment tools, educators gain the mechanisms they need to effectively evaluate student progress and determine the additional interventions needed to get every student succeeding.
Like most areas in education reform, there are good assessments and there are bad assessments.  There are research-based assessments, and there are squishy assessments.  There are assessments that work, and those that simply don’t.  The job of a good educator or a good policymaker is to learn the difference, and make sure we are using what works in our own schools and our own classrooms.
Those that celebrate articles like these as the “end of assessments” do so for one of two reasons.  Either they don’t truly understand what formative assessments are or they don’t have the research to prove that their models work.  
Cech is right.  This is an issue that many educators simply do not understand.  Nor is an issue that should be the exclusive playground of vendors or for-profit industry.  If we are going to hold our schools and our policymakers accountable for results in the classroom, we need to ensure that they have effective assessment tools AND understand how to use them appropriately.  We need to empower teachers to measure their students’ progress, and do so in a way that aligns with state and, hopefully, national learning standards.  And we need to simplify the assessment process so the average parent, the average teacher, and the average community member gets it.
Understanding meaningful assessment of student achievement should not require advanced degrees nor should it demand a multi-step, multi-part process that looks more like Swedish furniture assembly instructions than a benchmark of student progress.  There are simple, effective assessments out there.  We just need to redouble our efforts to get them out into the classroom.

Accountability!

Eduflack AYP, HQT, national standards, NCLB, Obama

This past week at the Aspen Institute’s National Education Summit, there was one clear super password for education improvement — accountability.  Superintendent after superintendent positioned accountability as the lasting mark of the NCLB era.  Business leaders spoke of how accountability was the true GPS to education reform.  Even EdSec Margaret Spellings has been using it to describe the education legacy of the Bush Administration.  Leaving the summit on Monday evening, one thing was clear, if we are to improve our schools and better educate our students, we must redouble our commitment to the notion of accountability.

Newly embracing the tag of educational agitator, Eduflack is ready and willing to trumpet the need for greater accountability in our schools.  As we discuss shared responsibility and shared gains in education, accountability is an action in which we can all take part, whether we be practitioners or policymakers, business or community leaders, parents or students, agitators or even status quoers.  When we hold our nation, our states, our districts, and our schools more accountable for both the instruction and the outcomes of that instruction, we have to believe that real, measurable student gains will only follow.
From the rhetoric in recent months, it seemed that both presidential candidates were equally supportive of the notion of increased accountability in our schools.  While neither has come out to wrap a bearhug around NCLB (and we shouldn’t wait for either to do so), both seemed to indicate that strengthening both standards and accountability are goals for the future.  Regardless of what wrapping we may place it in, the era of every educator for himself with little repercussion for success or failure is over.  It is time to put up and prove it.
So Eduflack was taken aback by Bruce Fuller’s September 18 blog piece on the New York Times online, which seems to indicate that an Obama administration would turn back the clock on accountability measures.  From his perch at the University of California Berkeley, Fuller states that Obama’s plan is one that simply sets learning standards, records student data, and recruits a stronger teacher base.
Don’t get me wrong, all three are important objectives.  But these are process-driven goals, not outcome-driven goals.  What good are learning standards (and please, oh please, can’t we come out for national standards instead), if we aren’t holding the students, their teachers, or their schools accountable for hitting levels of proficiency?  What good is recording student data if we aren’t using it improve instruction, identify what truly works in the classroom, and ensure that our teachers and our schools are hitting the benchmarks we have set for them?  And what good is teacher recruitment if we don’t have the systems in place to truly identify good teaching, reward it, and replicate it?  
The Aspen event has left the education policy community in an interesting position.  Not only did they bring together a who’s who of policy, business, and practice, but they moved nearly everyone to ask, what now?  This was more than just an informational session, it was a call to action.  It now falls to those leaders, both those at the rostrum and those in the audience, to drive us to real action, to real agitation, and to real improvement.
It is clear that accountability is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue.  Educational accountability is an American issue, and it is the necessary path to true school reform and true educational improvement.  We’ve spent decades fretting about processes.  Now is the time for action — for clear standards and even clearer accountability measures, both of which are enforced, and not just talked about.  That’s the only way we truly move our rhetoric to action.

Truly Gifted?

Eduflack AYP, NCLB
In recent months, we have heard the large urban districts trumpet their successes in hitting AYP and achieving the designation “proficient.”  Scores in NYC Public Schools have soared.  Year One of the Rhee Experiment in Washington, DC posted proficiency numbers few ever expected.  And similar data has been seen in similar districts throughout the nation.
Some critics questioned the standards used to measure proficiency in the first place.  Did we drop the bar to achieve AYP?  Are 2007 measures as strong as they were in, say, 2005?  In states like Maryland and cities like NYC, one could honestly raise the issue.  State and district standards have “evolved” in the NCLB era, and many of those evolutions have resulted in improved student achievement.  Students may not know more today, but they are more proficient, based on assessments.
So what’s the big deal?  Isn’t our goal to get all students proficient by any means necessary?  After all, we promised 100% proficiency in math, reading, and science by 2014.  We have to get there by any means necessary.
For years, the flip side of NCLB proficiency has been the issue of “gifted & talented.”  We have heard how G&T students have been punished by NCLB, as teacher attention and school resources are focused on those at risk and those hovering around the proficient mark.  At times, you’d even think NCLB was awarding new MacBooks to at-risk students, while leaving gifted kids to persevere with yellowed paper with chunks of wood still floating in it.
Perhaps that’s why Eduflack was taken aback yesterday by an article in the Washington Examiner, looking at the G&T issue in DC’s suburban schools.  Perhaps I am naive.  I’ve long thought that G&T was an elite designation.  Few students received the label, either due to limited resources to act with or the very real fact that few students are truly gifted.
The Examiner paints a very different picture, though.  At Bethesda, MD’s Westbrook Elementary School, for example, 87% of second graders have been designated G&T.  Across Montgomery County (home to Westbrook), 39% of second graders are G&T.  Fifty-two percent of them are white, 23% Asian, 13% Black, and 12% Hispanic.
In Fairfax County, VA, 34% of second graders earned the designation.  The breakdowns are similar — 53% white, 23% Asian, 7% Black, 10% Hispanic, and 7% multiracial.
I’m not saying there are not strong students in Montgomery or Fairfax Counties.  Students there and in other suburban districts (as well as in urban and rural districts) work hard and achieve.  But do we honestly believe that a third of ALL second graders are truly G&T?
Of course not.  The problem, though, is our national commitment to proficiency.  It seems that more and more districts are designating students as gifted if they perform above grade level on assessments.  Demonstrate your proficiency, and you must be gifted, right?
It is an odd line of thinking.  On a typical grading scale, we can assume “proficient” comes from earning a C.  So now, even those B-minus students are qualifying as gifted and talented.  And we all pat ourselves on the back for the achievement. 
Parents of truly gifted students would say such a policy is further harming their children and denying them the educational resources they need to reach their full potential.  Advocates for the new era of G&T designation would say we are challenging more students, instilling a new sense of hope and optimism in students who were previously just seen as average.  And those worrying about failing schools and drop-out factories would say we are just missing the point.  All may be right, but all are missing the larger point.
I’m all for acceleration in the classroom and more rigorous classes and programs for all students — not just the top tier.  Equipped with the right learning skills, all students should be pushed to study more advanced materials.  And I believe none of us should ever settle for mere “proficiency.”
But 34% G&T rates are the equivalent of every child winning a trophy, regardless of who actually won.  If a G&T designation isn’t limited to those who are truly outstanding among the top students, then the designation simply loses all meaning whatsoever.  We might as well just assign students colors, with every student performing grade level earning a purple.  It holds the same value. 

We Are Agitators, Not Advocates

Eduflack AFT, AYP, Chancellor Klein, national standards, NCLB, Roy Romer, Spellings

We’ve reached halftime at the Aspen Institute’s National Education Summit.  So far, the sessions have been interesting … and a little surprising.  What’s surprising?  No one is calling for the abolition of No Child Left Behind.  Even on a panel with two superintendents and the new president of the AFT, no one called for NCLB’s demise.  In fact, everyone seemed to believe the law has had a positive impact on education in the United States.  Why aren’t these folks talking to Congress?

But this is clearly not a conference on NCLB.  If the morning sessions are any indication, the future of education is about one thing and one thing only — accountability.  Perhaps EdSec Margaret Spellings is correct that accountability is going to be the lasting legacy of the NCLB era.  Today, everyone is talking about accountability, and everyone is talking about it in positive and glowing terms.
Some of the highlights from this morning:
* Spellings is reporting that test scores are up, the achievement gap is closing, and we are making great progress, particularly when it comes to math instruction.  EdSec also used the forum to promote her notion of Key Educational Indicators, her banking-industry metaphor for improving education (though the timing of modeling yourself after banking today is a little iffy.  I’d even prefer Tommy Thompson’s comparison to evaluating nursing homes).  What are those Indicators you may ask?  Simple measures — effective educators, reliable data, proven strategies.
* Ed in O8’s Roy Romer used his time at the rostrum to focus on his group’s new study on remedial education in postsecondary education, reporting one in three college-going high school grads needs remedial ed.  An important statistic, yes, but Eduflack thinks we should first figure out how to eliminate the 35% or so high school drop out rate, before focusing on those who made it through the system (even if it was a mediocre system at best)
* NPR/Fox commentator Juan Williams surprised the room by stating one of the biggest issues facing public education is the need (or the requirement) that we must be willing to challenge the unions.
* NYCPS’ Joel Klein has apparently heard one too many times that you can’t fix education until you fix poverty.  He countered with the mirror.  You can fix poverty once you fix education.  He also served as the chief voice for national education standards.
Surprisingly, Roy Romer seems to now be backing off his support for national standards.  A year ago, the former Colorado governor laid out what Eduflack thought was a terrific plan for using the nation’s top education governors to develop national education standards that could be adopted by all states.  Today, Romer said national standards just weren’t doable.  Instead, he proposed states developing their own standards that aligned with international standards, with the feds rewarding them for basing benchmarks on things like PISA.  An interesting idea, yes, but isn’t it more important to have the United States develop a single standard that matches up with PISA or TIMSS, and not that Arizona and Virginia have figured out how to do it by themselves, leaving the other 48 behind?  If national standards are not doable, tell us why and let’s task some folks to solve the problem.  Surrender isn’t the option, particularly on national standards.
The morning closed with an interesting discussion that focused, in part, on staff development.  Prince George’s County (MD) superintendent John Deasy focused on the concept that “teaching matters.”  Atlanta supe Beverly Hall called for professional development to be job embedded, and not simply an add-on offered one morning a month (Are you listing National Staff Development Council?  Hall is singing your song.)  Even Ed Trust’s Kati Haycock got in the act, suggesting that our schools need more programs like Core Knowledge if we are to really close that achievement gap and boost student achievement.
The takeaways?  No fireworks.  The Mayflower Hotel is hosting a room full of power players with the ability to enact real change.  They spent the morning listening and gathering information.  This was not about posturing or getting your slogan mentioned (since there are no open mikes for statements or questions) or showing you are the smartest person in the room.  Instead, this was about hearing and really understanding.  It was about making sure your view (and your motivation) for education reform is motivated by the same issues as your colleague across the table.  It is about making sure we’re all working together to solve the same problem and seeing success in the same way.
The event is being billed as “An Urgent Call.”  What is clear, though, is that there is still an absence of a national sense of urgency for the issue, particularly with those who aren’t running school districts, organizations, or corporations.  We still believe our individual school is doing a great job, regardless of the available data.  We still believe our students can compete, despite our slippage in international competition.  And we still think our kids are ready for the future, despite the growing dropout rate and increased remediation rate.  Clearly, we need an urgent call to Main Street, USA … and we need it now.
For years, Eduflack has talked about the need for public engagement and advocacy, particularly when it comes to the issue of school improvement.  But EdSec Spellings had it right when she said we should not settle for being advocates.  Instead, we should be agitators.  We’ve advocated for reform for decades.  Maybe the only way to really make a difference — to close the achievement gap, to boost student achievement in national and international measures, to measurably improve and support teaching, to broaden school choice and school opportunities — we really need to agitate.  I’m ready.  I’m Eduflack, and I’m an agitator.

“Glad” NCLB Wasn’t Reauthorized?

Eduflack AYP, HQT, national standards, NCLB, Spellings

Over the past year, we’ve heard from a lot of people that were thrilled that No Child Left Behind hadn’t been reauthorized.  Folks who felt it was an unfunded mandate.  Those who felt it overemphasized high-stakes testing. Those who feared it federalized education, removing the local control we’ve long depended on.  And those who questioned particular legislative components, whether it be special ed provisions, lack of attention on rural schools, highly qualified teacher language, over-emphasis on scientifically based research, etc.  Take your pick.  NCLB opponents have had a virtual Chinese menu of reasons to be glad that reauthorization efforts have stalled over the last two years.

But it was surprising to hear that EdSec Margaret Spellings shared in the joy of a stalled NCLB.  In remarks reported in Education Week’s Campaign K-12 blog, Spellings said she was “glad” the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was not reauthorized last year, due in large part to her view of the Miller/McKeon draft that was put forward early in the process.  Even more interesting, she believes the delay in reauthorization has allowed NCLB supporters to rally the troops and strengthen our resolve to build a law around “accountability.”
To a degree, Eduflack can understand where Spellings is coming from.  Congressman Miller was advocating some real changes to the law, including giving states and localities the flexibility of pursuing their own assessments.  Miller and McKeon did not share the view that NCLB was 99.99% good.  In reflecting on their goals when passing the law in the first place in 2002, the Democrat and Republican came together on a trial draft designed to strengthen the law and improve those areas where implementation has clearly fallen short.
I can also appreciate the need to take the time to do it right, ensuring a reauthorization effort is focused on the right issues — such as accountability.  But can we forget that the sand is quickly leaving the hourglass?  In March of 2007, one may have been “glad” that reauthorization didn’t move forward.  But this is now September 2008.  Those 18 months mean one thing and one thing only — NCLB has met its end.  We have been rallying the troops around accountability issues, but we’re about to disband the battalions.
Regardless of who wins the White House and who holds what majorities in the Congress, NCLB will soon cease to exist.  New decisionmakers will reauthorize ESEA their way.  Hopefully, accountability will remain a core tenet.  Maybe national standards will be moved front and center, as it should.  And if the presidential conventions are any indication, issues like teacher performance pay, school choice, and the achievement gap are likely to play prominent roles as well, as they deserve.  But NCLB is over.
Sure, NCLB may face the same fate as the Higher Education Act — a protracted reauthorization effort that takes five or more years to resolve.  The law may simply be level-funded year-on-year as the Congress tends to other priorities.  But change is coming, whether it be in 2009, 2010, or even further into the future.
For years, Eduflack has talked about how NCLB was one of those legacy pieces for this Administration.  As the final grains of sand fall, it is clear that that legacy is going to be one, first and foremost, of missed opportunities.  The goals and intentions of NCLB remain strong, and should remain the guiding principles we follow, both today and into the future.  But we’re lacking on the action.  We let threats and ultimatums win out over improvements and innovation.  And that’s a cryin’ shame.

How Do Grad Rates Rate?

Eduflack AYP, High School, national standards, NGA

It is the start of a new school year, thus the perfect time to start talking about graduation.  Recently, the media has run two interesting stories on high school graduation rates.  Last week, Michigan announced a 75% graduation rate, a number that dropped 10% from the previous year.  The cause?  Michigan is using a new graduation rate formula, a calculation that — while a little harsher — is far more accurate in determining graduation rates.

This week, Florida announced it may change the way it calculates the grad rate, eliminating a formula that included students who passed the GED and state assessments as high school “graduates.”  The expected result, like Michigan, Florida may soon see a significant drop in the high school graduation rate overnight.
These are but two examples of the challenges facing states in high school improvement efforts.  Take a look at the longitudinal data on high school graduation, and the numbers are quite unsettling.  States like Michigan and Florida tell you one thing, while Education Week and its Graduation Counts effort tell a completely different story (and it is usually a far-scarier one).  Talk to an urban superintendent about his graduation numbers, and you’ll hear rates in the 70 or 80 percents.  Ask Jay Greene and the Manhattan Institute the same question about the same districts, and you will often get a number that is 30 to 40 percent less than the superintendent is offering.
Why the great variance?  How can intelligent people look at the same schools, the same students, and the same data, yet come up with results that hold no resemblance to one another?
Florida is the perfect example of that.  When we talk grad rates, we expect it to measure the percentage of kids who started ninth grade and then finished 12th grade four years later (or in some cases, five years later).  We don’t expect students who drop out to pursue GEDs to be included in the grad pool.  After all, those students did not graduate from high school.  They pursued an alternative education path, but they did not graduate.
We talk a lot about AYP and how to compare schools, districts, and states when it comes to academic achievement.  We question whether student reading proficiency in Mississippi is equal to student reading proficiency in Massachusetts.  So why is it so hard for us to wrap our hands around a singular, clear high school graduation rate?
Years ago, the National Governors Association got all 50 states to buy into a common graduation formula.  Take a look at how many kids start ninth grade.  Factor out the school transfers and similar considerations.  Then look at how many of those kids graduated four years later.  That’s the grad rate — how many students completed high school four years after beginning it.
Several states have adopted this formula (including Michigan, thus the change in its most recent numbers).  But many more still have yet to apply the common formula to their state’s data.  Some are holding off because they are fearful of announcing a significant drop in grad rate overnight.  Others are working on building the data collection systems they need to do the work effectively.  And still others are just trying to sort it all out, trying to fit this priority in with a growing list of state education needs.
No matter the reason, the time has come for all states to embrace a common longitudinal graduation rate.  There is simply too much at stake not to.  In virtually every state in the union, we talk about the need to prepare our students for the opportunities of the 21st century.  We talk about new skills and new jobs.  About working smarter.  We discuss that a high school diploma is no longer a sufficient terminal degree, and that postsecondary education is a necessary step for all.
Can we really get more kids into postsecondary education if we don’t know who is actually finishing high school?  How do we boost graduation rates if we don’t have an accurate baseline to build on?  How do we improve the high school experience if we don’t have good data on who finishes, who doesn’t, and why?
Michigan and Florida’s announcements are indications we are heading in the right direction.  The first step might be painful.  No one wants to see their grad rates significantly decline.  But it is the right thing to do.  And it is a necessary step if we are to improve our nation’s high schools, increasing the number of kids who graduate from high school and go on to college.

Too Good?

Eduflack AYP, DCPS, national standards, Students

In New Haven, CT, a nine-year-old boy was just told he couldn’t play Little League baseball.  His offense?  League officials have determined that the boy is just too good.  His team is 8-0.  A pitcher, the boy throws a 40-mile-per-hour fastball (which for those unfamiliar with the game is just filthy good).  It means most opposing players are unable to hit his pitches.  He broke no rules; he did nothing wrong.  In fact, he did it all right, performing as all of us former Little Leaguers wish we could.  The result?  The nine-year-old has been banished from the league, and his fellow teammates have been offered slots on the remaining teams in the league.

What does all this have to do with education reform, you may ask?  Actually, a great deal.  Let’s first look at the message we are sending children.  After a decade of soccer games where do don’t keep score, trophies for all kids who participate, and the elimination of games like dodgeball because they make some kids feel bad about themselves, we are now ostracizing students for excelling.  We are telling them that the goal is mediocrity.  Better to remain in the pack rather than strive to be the leader.
It is hard enough to be a student in today’s world.  If we believe media reports, peer pressure, bullying, and the like are far worse today than they were when Eduflack was a kid.  We hear tales of students who downplay their intellect and are ashamed of their achievement, fearful of the repercussions on the playground or in the neighborhood.  And now they have to worry about attacks and dismissal from the adults that were trusted to teach them and further develop their skills?  League officials should celebrate this kid for being an all-star and achieving at levels of kids two, three, or four years older than the one in question.
It is no wonder we have such a difficult time encouraging, supporting, and demanding improved student achievement.  We don’t focus on those schools that regularly make AYP.  Instead, we come up with excuses as to why so many schools are failing to excel.  Instead of offering incentives to ensure that the very best teachers are in DC classrooms, we accuse the DCPS chancellor or racism, sexism, ageism, and any other ism we can think of.  Instead of ensuring all U.S. schools are world class, and can compete with our international colleagues, we turn a blind eye to how our lax U.S. national standards measure up to other industrialized nations.  Instead of striving to continue to offer the best public education available in the free world and a system of meritocracy, we are content with status quo and a life of mediocrity.
Sure, this is a lot to deduce from a Little League pitcher.  But look at the past two weeks.  We celebrated U.S. performances in the Olympic Games, cheering the fact the United States won more medals than any other nation.  But how much attention did educators pay to the educational olympics offered by the Fordham Foundation, which show our standing slipping in critical academic areas?
We should be asking ourselves how we get out kids to throw lights-out when it comes to algebra II or chemistry, Spanish or world history.  We should be encouraging STEM education in the elementary grades and advanced-level courses at the start of high school.  We should be asking how we can get every kid excelling academically — exceeding expectations and grade-level requirements.    

Mini Me, Version DCPS

Eduflack AYP, Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, DCPS, Fenty, Michelle Rhee

Educators are very big on the concept of modeling.  We find what is effective in a similar situation (with a school, a class, or a student just like mine) and put it into practice in our own situation.  Makes sense — if it is works for someone else, it just may work for me.

But sometimes we can take modeling a little too far, giving the impression we are just mimicking or copying those that others like.  Case in point, DC Public Schools.  For a school district that is supposedly all about innovation and improvement, they seem to be an awful lot like the new student trying to dress, talk, and act like the “cool kid” on the playground.
We saw it last year when DC Mayor Fenty decided he would channel NYC Mayor Bloomberg, appointing a schools chancellor (instead of a superintendent) and choosing a non-traditional choice (former Justice Department official Joel Klein in NYC and New Teacher Project founder Michelle Rhee in DC).  Since, we’ve seen it in Rhee’s dealings issues such as school closings and dealings with the unions and even parental engagement.
Yesterday, though, Rhee officially became Klein’s mini-me.  She announced a new pilot project to “pay” middle school students for showing up for school and doing their work.  If successful, Rhee intends to take the pilot project across all middle schools in DC, offering up crisp Benjamins for students who do their jobs as students.
Let’s forget that there are still unanswered questions about the effectiveness of NYC’s own pilot effort.  What message does it send when we offer middle school students pay for play?
Supporters of such efforts would argue it is simply an equity issue.  Upper-class families have been paying their kids for good grades for years, the line goes, why can’t we give at-risk students the financial incentive to come to class, pay attention, and do their homework.  After all, fair is fair.
Unfortunately, such thinking completely misses the larger picture.  Pay for play is necessary when there is no larger reason for the action.  In recent years, though, we’ve been telling students and their families that a good education is necessary for a good job.  We need more rigorous classes.  We need kids with high school diplomas and postsecondary educations.  We need students with the academic and social skills to succeed.
Step one to getting there is actually showing up for school.  Step two is paying attention.  Step three is doing the work.  Step four is measuring proficiency.  Repeat.  
The reward should be the proficiency and the skill acquisition.  A crisp $100 bill shouldn’t be the incentive for student performance.  If it is, getting middle school students to show up is the least of our problems.
If DCPS wants to borrow from the NYC DOE playbook, it should be focusing on increasing student achievement and closing the achievement gap.  Gimmicks such as pay to play may look good in the local papers, but they simply aren’t going to solve the larger issues facing DCPS and other urban districts.

Thinking Less of Our Schools

Eduflack AYP, Marketing, NCLB, PR

This week, Education Next and the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University released their second annual survey on public education.  There is a lot of interesting data here (http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/26380034.html).

For years, we have subscribed to the notion that we believe our own schools are doing a great job, even if we think public schools nationally are struggling.  What does the data say?  Nationally, only 9% of those surveyed would give their own schools an A (still a huge improvement from the 2% who give us an A nationally).  More than half of those surveyed said their own schools scored a C or worse, while more than three-quarters of adults gave a C or poorer to our schools nationally.

By comparison, 19% give our local police force an A.  Heck, 22% give the post office an A.

But we are schizophrenic on our views of our schools.  Three quarters of adults rate the schools average (C) or worse, yet 56% believe our schools are heading in the right direction (with two of three teachers surveyed seeing an upward trend).

The right direction must be because of NCLB, right?  Wrong.  Half of adults say NCLB should either be overhauled or not renewed at all.  With teachers, three-quarters of educators give it a thumbs down.

Huh?  How can that be?  We are headed in the right direction, but we need to dramatically change or reject the path we’ve been taking for the past six years?  It just doesn’t make sense.

Education Next does deserve credit for its definition of NCLB.  Over the past five years, survey after survey has tried to capture similar data, with varied results.  And it often comes down to the questions posed.  For this survey, NCLB is defined simply:  “the No Child Left Behind Act requires states to set standards in math and reading and to test students each year to determine whether schools are making adequate progress, and to intervene when they are not.”
 
On the plus side, 69% of adults want national education standards, and want standards defined as “one test and standard for all students.”  (A majority of teachers, 54%, support a single national standard.)

What does all this tell us?  Unfortunately, we’re back to a familiar refrain from Eduflack.  We must do a better job of promoting the progress, the successes, and the good works of our local schools.  For the past few years, we have dwelled on the negatives and the negatives only.  Failing students.  Over-their-head teachers.  Overworked administrators.  Unconcerned parents.  Is it any wonder we don’t see any A schools out there, either nationally or in our own communities?

Reforming schools is about improving schools.  We can put in the right curriculum.  Train and support the right teachers.  Demonstrate improved student achievement.  It is all for naught if we aren’t “selling” reform and educating stakeholders on what’s really happening in our classrooms.  If this data is any indication, effective marketing and PR for our schools may be almost as important instruction.
  
 

What is Achievement?

Eduflack AYP, high-stakes testing, Math, NAEP, national standards

In today’s education reform era, student achievement is king.  We want to see our kids succeeding.  We want to see test scores rise.  We want to know we can better compete against foreign nations on things like PISA and TIMSS.  We want assurances our students are getting a top-notch education measure by results, and not by processes.

But what, exactly, is achievement?  Eduflack and a close friend have been debating this very issue this week, and it really has me thinking.  Do we, as a nation, now believe that student achievement is only measured based on state-offered standardized tests?  And if not, what else qualifies as a measurement tool?

When the State of Maryland announced earlier this year that student achievement had dramatically increased in many at-risk schools across the state, Mike Petrilli and the folks over at the Fordham Foundation quickly pounced, correctly noting that reducing a standard so more kids make it does not mean students are achieving.  The same could be said in NYC.  NYCDOE’s recent test score boastings are indeed impressive.  But how does this year’s yardstick measure with the previous years, those years when fewer students hit the mark?

And what about those subjects not measured by the state tests or by national measures like NAEP?  Is there no student achievement in subjects like foreign languages or the arts or, in some cases, social studies?  Clearly, that isn’t the case.

I recognize these are some odd questions coming from me, particularly when I have long argued that we know programs like Reading First work because we have the student performance data to show it.  Don’t get me wrong, I still believe that.  In core subjects like reading and math, we have decades of data that demonstrate student performance.  As long as the measurement tools are the same (as is the formula to calculate achievement) we know effectiveness or not.

I’ve heard myriad of stories of how elementary school music classes have boosted student math ability and how “non-core” classes have had a real impact on student interest and ability in the three Rs.  With the recent push of STEM (science-tech-engineering-math) programs in our K-12s, we often talk about how social studies and other course electives can help strengthen a student’s STEM ability.  Can we quantify such impacts?  How do we claim more than just causal relationships between X course and student achievement?

A relative first for me, I’ll admit, but I don’t have all of the answers here.  I know that student achievement should be our primary focus, and that we must ensure that all students are performing at the necessary levels in all subjects.  I know that national standards are key to delivering on this promise, providing a singular yardstick by which to measure all students in all 50 states.  And I know that such measures in reading/ELA, math, and science are the most important ones to provide us a real benchmark on where our students are … and where they need to go.

But I also recognize there is more to it than just that.  How do we benchmark other subjects, particularly those that are not mandated as part of the state assessment or graduation requirements?  How do we make sure that the year-on-year yardstick doesn’t move from 36 inches to 33, giving us a false reading in a given year?  How, exactly, do we make sure our kids are really learning and achieving?