Nearly eight years ago, the National Reading Panel released its findings before Congress, officially starting the push for scientifically based reading research — or SBRR — in the classroom. Then, just as now, we knew that all students needed reading skills in order to achieve. We knew that an inability to read at grade level by fourth grade would hamper learning ability throughout a student’s academic career. And, thanks to the NRP and the previous work done by the National Academies of Science, we know what our classrooms needed to do to transform every child into a reader. The research was clear, the NRP documented it, and the challenge became equipping every teacher with the knowledgebase and ability to use that research and get kids reading.
In many ways, the NRP report was a revolution. Strong supporters and equally strong opponents went through it recommendation by recommendation, idea by idea. Other researchers, such as Camilli, re-analyzed everything to determine if the findings were accurate (they were). And in the end, the research stands as strong today as it did in April of 2000. Some may attack the personalities involved in the NRP. Others may wish the NRP had studied more issues or made additional recommendations (particularly as they relate to literature or to qualitative research). And still others may wish the NRP findings had been more flexibly adopted as part of Reading First. But no one can question that the NRP started a revolution, giving us a new way to look at education, a new way to look at educational research, and higher standard for doing what works and seeking return on educational investment. (Full disclosure, Eduflack was senior advisor to the NRP, and damned proud of the Panel, its work, and its impact on education.)
It took years before we saw the full impact of the NRP findings. SBRR didn’t enter the discussion until two years later, after NCLB and RF were signed into law. (Yes, the NRP was a Clinton-era initiative). But look at it now.
It is significant to remember this as we look at this week’s report from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. For those who missed it (and it was hard to, with the significant media coverage it received from the nation’s leading newspapers), the Math Panel offered significant recommendations on the math skills our students need to succeed and how our nation’s teachers can empower all students with such skills.
In doing so, the Math Panel has now planted a firm flag in the name of education reform and improved student achievement. By looking at ways to improve the PreK through eighth grade math curriculum, the Panel has clearly articulated what our kids should know as part of their mathematics education. And they have provided specific goals for math instruction, goals that can and should guide curriculum development, program acquisition, teaching, and learning in schools and classrooms across the nation.
The Panel’s members should be applauded for their hard work and their commitment. This report is an important milestone in the improvement of math education in the United States. Unfortunately, it is just the first step of many. From Eduflack’s experience, the hard work begins now. Now, we have to move those findings into practice.
Too often, we’ve seen important government studies that never live up to their potentials. Reports are published. Copies are distributed. Then they sit in closets or on bookshelves never to be seen again. Many believe simply distributing the report, and raising awareness of its existence and contents, is all that is needed. We know, however, that is far from the case.
For the Math Panel report to have the impact it should have on our schools, we need to look beyond mere information distribution and focus on changing math teaching and math learning. If we learned anything from the NRP, it is that an aggressive public engagement campaign is key to long-term impact. Yes, it is important that we learn of the Math Panel’s findings. But it is more important for teachers to understand how they need to change their practice and the impact it will have on students. We need administrators to know what they must look for in selecting curricular solutions. We need teacher educators to know what skills and abilities they must equip future generations of math teachers with. We must let all of our key stakeholders know what they have to do differently to meet the Math Panel’s goals — and we must arm them with the resources and support necessary to achieve it.
The time is now for the National Mathematics Advisory Panel and math educators, math advocates, parents, and policymakers who are committed to boosting math achievement among U.S. students. And it is a time to act. With a clear blueprint, we know where we need to go and what we need to do. Now, we must learn from the experiences of the NRP, avoid the political roadblocks and the straying from the research, and focus on doing. It’s the only way our kids can ensure that classroom experience times research-based practice equals long-term results.
Math
2 + 2 = controversy
Sometimes, it just isn’t as simple as two plus two. Case in point, the current brouhaha down in Texas, where the State Board of Education is rejecting the third grade Everyday Mathematics program. The program currently has 20 percent marketshare in Texas, and its been credited with turning around the math scores in New York City’s public schools. Despite that, Texas is expelling the program, citing its failure to prepare kids for college.
The full story is in the New York Sun — http://www.nysun.com/article/66711 — courtesy of <a href="http://www.educationnews.org.
Texas”>www.educationnews.org.
Texas educators should be allowed to do what they think is right for Texas students. Just because it works in New York or anywhere else doesn’t mean it will work in the Lone Star State. Sometimes, what happens in New York needs to stay in New York.
Be clear, we do know it is working in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein will clearly tell you that, as will the folks who decided the Broad Prize this year. And NYC’s math scores have improved since the curriculum was implemented almost five years. Both opinion and the data seem to point to the effectiveness of the program, at least in the Big Apple.
What makes this interesting, particularly from a communications perspective, is WHY folks are standing up in opposition to Everyday Mathematics. It comes down to two issues — rigor and readiness.
Rigor, of course, is the new buzz word. Here at the end of 2007, it is now being used in place of scientifically or evidence based. Called progressive or fuzzy, Everyday Math is getting caught in the crosshairs of the math wars (a far more dastardly battle than any reading war skirmish). Funny that, since it comes from McGraw Hill, the publisher usually beaten up for its overemphasis on research and methodology for its Open Court reading programs.
Regardless, the U.S. Department of Education, according to the Sun, judged “Everyday Math more effective than some more traditional programs but calling its impact still just “potentially” positive.” So it must have some rigor to pass IES’ WWC filters.
So we move on to readiness. The public criticism is that Everyday Math is not preparing kids for college. Some Texas officials rejected it because the book doesn’t include multiplication tables. And an NYU computer science professor has attacked the curriculum for not preparing kids for the types of college courses he teaches.
Eduflack is the first to recognize that college readiness is all the rage these days. But how many of our third graders are planning on matriculating to postsecondary institutions this coming fall? Are third-grade math courses designed to prepare us for the rigors of college, or the rigors of middle school?
Yes, states and school districts should be given the flexibility to do what is best for their students. Even in NYC, Klein has provided waivers to those schools looking to use an alternative elementary school math curriculum. But when we attack third grade textbooks on the college readiness issue, aren’t we starting to play Chicken Little?
College readiness is an important, even a critical, issue for our nation’s public schools. But if we use it as a rhetorical strawman to turn back each and every program, curriculum, and initiative we oppose, we remove the soul and value of the issue. Sure, everything from preK on in some way gets our kids ready for college. They are building blocks of learning. Does this now mean that if don’t provide our kindergartners with phonics and phonemic awareness, we are not effectively preparing them for college? Technically, yes, but rhetorically, of course not.
Students become math-ready for college by taking Algebra, Algebra II, geometry, and trig in their middle and high schools. Third grade prepares some of the building blocks to get there, but even the most successful, beyond this world third-grade curriculum will not make today’s average nine-year-old college ready. It doesn’t take a math Ph.D. to see that.
The Texas State Board of Education should be making sure that its elementary school mathbooks are providing the foundations every kid needs to succeed. If not, stand up and say so and propose a better solution. If Everyday Math isn’t cutting it for Texas kids, just say it isn’t the best choice for Texas classrooms. That’s the Board’s prerogative and their responsibility. But do it for the right reasons. Otherwise, we aren’t too far from hearing that this Play-Doh may not be a college-ready supplemental learning tool.
The full story is in the New York Sun — http://www.nysun.com/article/66711 — courtesy of <a href="http://www.educationnews.org.
Texas”>www.educationnews.org.
Texas educators should be allowed to do what they think is right for Texas students. Just because it works in New York or anywhere else doesn’t mean it will work in the Lone Star State. Sometimes, what happens in New York needs to stay in New York.
Be clear, we do know it is working in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein will clearly tell you that, as will the folks who decided the Broad Prize this year. And NYC’s math scores have improved since the curriculum was implemented almost five years. Both opinion and the data seem to point to the effectiveness of the program, at least in the Big Apple.
What makes this interesting, particularly from a communications perspective, is WHY folks are standing up in opposition to Everyday Mathematics. It comes down to two issues — rigor and readiness.
Rigor, of course, is the new buzz word. Here at the end of 2007, it is now being used in place of scientifically or evidence based. Called progressive or fuzzy, Everyday Math is getting caught in the crosshairs of the math wars (a far more dastardly battle than any reading war skirmish). Funny that, since it comes from McGraw Hill, the publisher usually beaten up for its overemphasis on research and methodology for its Open Court reading programs.
Regardless, the U.S. Department of Education, according to the Sun, judged “Everyday Math more effective than some more traditional programs but calling its impact still just “potentially” positive.” So it must have some rigor to pass IES’ WWC filters.
So we move on to readiness. The public criticism is that Everyday Math is not preparing kids for college. Some Texas officials rejected it because the book doesn’t include multiplication tables. And an NYU computer science professor has attacked the curriculum for not preparing kids for the types of college courses he teaches.
Eduflack is the first to recognize that college readiness is all the rage these days. But how many of our third graders are planning on matriculating to postsecondary institutions this coming fall? Are third-grade math courses designed to prepare us for the rigors of college, or the rigors of middle school?
Yes, states and school districts should be given the flexibility to do what is best for their students. Even in NYC, Klein has provided waivers to those schools looking to use an alternative elementary school math curriculum. But when we attack third grade textbooks on the college readiness issue, aren’t we starting to play Chicken Little?
College readiness is an important, even a critical, issue for our nation’s public schools. But if we use it as a rhetorical strawman to turn back each and every program, curriculum, and initiative we oppose, we remove the soul and value of the issue. Sure, everything from preK on in some way gets our kids ready for college. They are building blocks of learning. Does this now mean that if don’t provide our kindergartners with phonics and phonemic awareness, we are not effectively preparing them for college? Technically, yes, but rhetorically, of course not.
Students become math-ready for college by taking Algebra, Algebra II, geometry, and trig in their middle and high schools. Third grade prepares some of the building blocks to get there, but even the most successful, beyond this world third-grade curriculum will not make today’s average nine-year-old college ready. It doesn’t take a math Ph.D. to see that.
The Texas State Board of Education should be making sure that its elementary school mathbooks are providing the foundations every kid needs to succeed. If not, stand up and say so and propose a better solution. If Everyday Math isn’t cutting it for Texas kids, just say it isn’t the best choice for Texas classrooms. That’s the Board’s prerogative and their responsibility. But do it for the right reasons. Otherwise, we aren’t too far from hearing that this Play-Doh may not be a college-ready supplemental learning tool.
Putting the Math Cart Before the Counting Horse
If we are to improve our schools, we need research-based instruction. Student achievement increases when we use instruction and interventions that are proven effective. Do what works, and see the results. It is an easy concept to spout, but a far harder one to put into practice.
Since the release of the National Reading Panel report in April of 2000, many have called for the adoption of scientifically based practice in reading and English-Language Arts classrooms throughout the nation. We all know every student should be reading at grade level, particularly by the time they hit fourth grade. Most of us know what it takes to get a child to read proficiently. And some are unrelenting in ensuring that scientifically based reading is the one and only standard when it comes to our classrooms.
But what about math? With the passage of NCLB, we all know that reading and math are the lighthouses for student achievement (with science shortly coming online). Where are the similar demands for scientifically based math instruction in the classroom? Isn’t it just as important to do what we know works, to do what is proven effective in teaching children math skills? After all, we consistently use math as that great barometer to determining if our students have the chops to compete with students across the globe.
For those who missed it, last week Congress declared its intention to fund nearly $100 million in math instruction grants under Math Now, part of the America COMPETES Act. If you didn’t see it, Sean Cavanagh and Education Week have the story — http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/09/26/05mathnow.h27.html.
Sure, it’s easy to compare Math Now with Reading First, at least from Eduflack’s perch. For RF, $1 billion a year to start. For Math Now, $95 million (though supporters sought $250 million). Both designed to support the adoption of instructionally sound practice. Both desperately needed, particularly in our struggling schools.
There is one major difference, though. Reading First was designed to put National Reading Panel and National Academies of Sciences’ research on how best to teach children to read into practice. We identify what works and put our money behind it. On the whole, the effort has been successful. Like just about everything, the program needs improvement (the sort of improvements most government programs can learn from). Reading First should be strengthened, tightened, and faced with greater oversight, ensuring that only truly research-based programs are receiving funding. Our taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be going to fund promises or pledges or hopes or silver bullets. We expect results. We pay for what works. That was the promise that Reading First made, a promise many are still waiting to be fulfilled.
Which takes us back to math. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education announced the formation of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The Math Panel’s findings are expected early next year, and the charge is to do for math research much of what the NRP did for reading research. The panel is to tell us what works in teaching math, identifying the most effective and replicable instruction for empowering our students with math ability.
Makes you ask, then, what Math Now is based on, if the Math Panel’s findings aren’t due for another six months or so? Unfortunately, this may be yet another example of rhetoric not quite aligning with practice. Math Now is throwing its support behind initiative that are “research-based and have a demonstrated record of effectiveness.” Shouldn’t we be waiting for the Math Panel to issue its report, detailing what the research base is and what the data tells us about effective math instruction?
Yes, it is important that we signal we are moving beyond the status quo. We need to communicate a unifying commitment to boost student achievement. And we need to pledge our support for research-based instruction and interventions that are proven to work. Anything short of that, we are throwing good money after bad, with no hope of truly fixing the problem.
The America COMPETES Act is well-meaning legislation. And Math Now is a good idea with real potential. We just need to make sure it has the research support, the strong oversight, the cadre of advocates, and the effective communication to succeed. Education reform cannot afford another “half-way” attempt at improving instruction of a core subject matter. If we don’t take all of the necessary steps — research, policy, and communications — we will never solve the equation.
Since the release of the National Reading Panel report in April of 2000, many have called for the adoption of scientifically based practice in reading and English-Language Arts classrooms throughout the nation. We all know every student should be reading at grade level, particularly by the time they hit fourth grade. Most of us know what it takes to get a child to read proficiently. And some are unrelenting in ensuring that scientifically based reading is the one and only standard when it comes to our classrooms.
But what about math? With the passage of NCLB, we all know that reading and math are the lighthouses for student achievement (with science shortly coming online). Where are the similar demands for scientifically based math instruction in the classroom? Isn’t it just as important to do what we know works, to do what is proven effective in teaching children math skills? After all, we consistently use math as that great barometer to determining if our students have the chops to compete with students across the globe.
For those who missed it, last week Congress declared its intention to fund nearly $100 million in math instruction grants under Math Now, part of the America COMPETES Act. If you didn’t see it, Sean Cavanagh and Education Week have the story — http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/09/26/05mathnow.h27.html.
Sure, it’s easy to compare Math Now with Reading First, at least from Eduflack’s perch. For RF, $1 billion a year to start. For Math Now, $95 million (though supporters sought $250 million). Both designed to support the adoption of instructionally sound practice. Both desperately needed, particularly in our struggling schools.
There is one major difference, though. Reading First was designed to put National Reading Panel and National Academies of Sciences’ research on how best to teach children to read into practice. We identify what works and put our money behind it. On the whole, the effort has been successful. Like just about everything, the program needs improvement (the sort of improvements most government programs can learn from). Reading First should be strengthened, tightened, and faced with greater oversight, ensuring that only truly research-based programs are receiving funding. Our taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be going to fund promises or pledges or hopes or silver bullets. We expect results. We pay for what works. That was the promise that Reading First made, a promise many are still waiting to be fulfilled.
Which takes us back to math. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education announced the formation of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The Math Panel’s findings are expected early next year, and the charge is to do for math research much of what the NRP did for reading research. The panel is to tell us what works in teaching math, identifying the most effective and replicable instruction for empowering our students with math ability.
Makes you ask, then, what Math Now is based on, if the Math Panel’s findings aren’t due for another six months or so? Unfortunately, this may be yet another example of rhetoric not quite aligning with practice. Math Now is throwing its support behind initiative that are “research-based and have a demonstrated record of effectiveness.” Shouldn’t we be waiting for the Math Panel to issue its report, detailing what the research base is and what the data tells us about effective math instruction?
Yes, it is important that we signal we are moving beyond the status quo. We need to communicate a unifying commitment to boost student achievement. And we need to pledge our support for research-based instruction and interventions that are proven to work. Anything short of that, we are throwing good money after bad, with no hope of truly fixing the problem.
The America COMPETES Act is well-meaning legislation. And Math Now is a good idea with real potential. We just need to make sure it has the research support, the strong oversight, the cadre of advocates, and the effective communication to succeed. Education reform cannot afford another “half-way” attempt at improving instruction of a core subject matter. If we don’t take all of the necessary steps — research, policy, and communications — we will never solve the equation.
Math is Hard? Ha!
Back in the late 1990s, Mattel came out with a Barbie doll that, among other things, informed many little girls (and some little boys) that “math is hard.” It was the wrong message to send then, and the wrong message now. We all know that girls (and boys) should be encouraged to pursue math and science, and not feel they aren’t smart enough to take these essential courses.
The worry, at the time, was that Barbie would plant her message of underachievement in a many young girls, denying us a generation of Madame Curies, Sally Rides, and even Danica MacKellars. After all, would a plastic doll lie?
Fortunately, our fears seem to be unfounded. This week, women were the big winners of the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology, taking top honors for individual and team projects. Looks like those chemistry sets had a far greater impact than Malibu Barbie and her dream house.
The worry, at the time, was that Barbie would plant her message of underachievement in a many young girls, denying us a generation of Madame Curies, Sally Rides, and even Danica MacKellars. After all, would a plastic doll lie?
Fortunately, our fears seem to be unfounded. This week, women were the big winners of the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology, taking top honors for individual and team projects. Looks like those chemistry sets had a far greater impact than Malibu Barbie and her dream house.
Congrats to Isha Jain, Janelle Schlossberger, Amanda Marinoff, and all of the others who participated in the Siemens competition. Now winning Siemens, that’s hard.
The Need for STEM: Exhibit P
For the past few years, there has been a growing debate on the need for STEM (science-technology-engineering-math) education. To some, STEM is a program for the elites, an honors program that doesn’t affect the majority of kids who need it. For others, it is too expensive. And for others still, it is a complicated issue that doesn’t fit neatly in the K-12 box. As a result, STEM education efforts have been sporadic to date. Some states — like Minnesota — have done a tremendous job building a STEM education effort that reaches all students in the continuum. Unfortunately, far too many are playing a wait and see, holding off before making significant intellectual, time, or capital investments.
And then the PISA scores come out. Of the 30 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States ranks 25th in math and 21st in science. Not only are we no longer the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox of STEM, we’re now dangerously close to being the cellar-dwellers, the Tampa Rays of K-12 math and science education.
Of course, PISA is usually one of the inside-iest of inside baseball games. For the average parent, the average teacher, and average elected official, PISA is nothing more than a leaning tower in Italy. We are just starting to understand NAEP, and now you throw this other acronym at us? Are we really going to lose a night’s sleep over PISA scores?
The PISA data should serve as a dramatic wake-up call to all those who are resisting or avoiding STEM education. No one should be happy that we are in bottom quartile or so of OECD states when it comes to math and science. It used to be that Finland and Canada and Korea and the others looked to us for high-quality education, scientific innovation, and academic achievement. Today, we are in a deep well of mediocrity, struggling to even see the bucket up top.
How, then, can we use such lackluster data to successfully communicate the need for robust, results-based STEM education in our schools? Simple. We use PISA to launch an aspirational, forward-looking effort that recognizes:
* We can’t settle for second (or 25th) place. We need to set a national goal to boost our science and math instruction, knowledge, and performance. Students, parents, and teachers need to know that goal. And we all need to be working to achieve it. If we can’t have national standards, we should at least have national goals.
* We must all understand that STEM education is not merely an education issue. It is an economic issue, first and foremost. It is a health issue. It is an environmental issue. It’s even a criminal justice issue. Effective STEM education improves virtually all sectors of the community. It brings jobs. It prepares a workforce. It improves health and environmental conditions. And it provides real hope and opportunity.
* STEM is not just for the future doctors, engineers, and rocket scientists. ALL students benefit from STEM. It offers the critical thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving skills virtually all 21st century jobs require.
* STEM education isn’t a responsibility just left to the schools. At the end of the day, companies and employers are the ones most hard hit by our 25th and 21st place performances. Those are their future employees coming up the rear. The business community needs to continue its investment in STEM, increasing it to ensure it affects all students and is effectively linking K-12 to future careers.
* We can’t sell our kids short. Ask the average high school student, and they know they need math and science ed if they need a good job. Yet many of us keep saying the students aren’t up to the challenge, the courses are too hard, or the courses aren’t relevant to what we expect of our kids. All wrong. Let’s push our kids. Every student takes Algebra II. All take advanced science, whether it be on an AP or a CTE track. There are STEM pathways for every student. We just might need to clear the brush a little.
No, Eduflack is not suggesting we overreact because of one set of testing data. But PISA serves as a warning. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen our test scores falling short against of international peers. The solution isn’t to ignore them and focus only on ourselves. If we boost math scores 2 percent, but our peers are boosting them 4 percent, tomorrow’s great American minds will never be able to catch up. We should strive to be the best, not strive to be the best south of Canada and north of Nicaragua.
The United States has long held the reputation of being a nation of innovation, of invention, and of success. That comes, in large part, from the outcomes of previous investments in science, math, and technology. If we seek to be the leader in 21st century innovation, we have no time to waste. We need to invest in high-quality, effective STEM education today.
And then the PISA scores come out. Of the 30 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States ranks 25th in math and 21st in science. Not only are we no longer the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox of STEM, we’re now dangerously close to being the cellar-dwellers, the Tampa Rays of K-12 math and science education.
Of course, PISA is usually one of the inside-iest of inside baseball games. For the average parent, the average teacher, and average elected official, PISA is nothing more than a leaning tower in Italy. We are just starting to understand NAEP, and now you throw this other acronym at us? Are we really going to lose a night’s sleep over PISA scores?
The PISA data should serve as a dramatic wake-up call to all those who are resisting or avoiding STEM education. No one should be happy that we are in bottom quartile or so of OECD states when it comes to math and science. It used to be that Finland and Canada and Korea and the others looked to us for high-quality education, scientific innovation, and academic achievement. Today, we are in a deep well of mediocrity, struggling to even see the bucket up top.
How, then, can we use such lackluster data to successfully communicate the need for robust, results-based STEM education in our schools? Simple. We use PISA to launch an aspirational, forward-looking effort that recognizes:
* We can’t settle for second (or 25th) place. We need to set a national goal to boost our science and math instruction, knowledge, and performance. Students, parents, and teachers need to know that goal. And we all need to be working to achieve it. If we can’t have national standards, we should at least have national goals.
* We must all understand that STEM education is not merely an education issue. It is an economic issue, first and foremost. It is a health issue. It is an environmental issue. It’s even a criminal justice issue. Effective STEM education improves virtually all sectors of the community. It brings jobs. It prepares a workforce. It improves health and environmental conditions. And it provides real hope and opportunity.
* STEM is not just for the future doctors, engineers, and rocket scientists. ALL students benefit from STEM. It offers the critical thinking, teamwork, and problem-solving skills virtually all 21st century jobs require.
* STEM education isn’t a responsibility just left to the schools. At the end of the day, companies and employers are the ones most hard hit by our 25th and 21st place performances. Those are their future employees coming up the rear. The business community needs to continue its investment in STEM, increasing it to ensure it affects all students and is effectively linking K-12 to future careers.
* We can’t sell our kids short. Ask the average high school student, and they know they need math and science ed if they need a good job. Yet many of us keep saying the students aren’t up to the challenge, the courses are too hard, or the courses aren’t relevant to what we expect of our kids. All wrong. Let’s push our kids. Every student takes Algebra II. All take advanced science, whether it be on an AP or a CTE track. There are STEM pathways for every student. We just might need to clear the brush a little.
No, Eduflack is not suggesting we overreact because of one set of testing data. But PISA serves as a warning. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen our test scores falling short against of international peers. The solution isn’t to ignore them and focus only on ourselves. If we boost math scores 2 percent, but our peers are boosting them 4 percent, tomorrow’s great American minds will never be able to catch up. We should strive to be the best, not strive to be the best south of Canada and north of Nicaragua.
The United States has long held the reputation of being a nation of innovation, of invention, and of success. That comes, in large part, from the outcomes of previous investments in science, math, and technology. If we seek to be the leader in 21st century innovation, we have no time to waste. We need to invest in high-quality, effective STEM education today.
Best of, Worst of for Student Test Data?
Two data sets on student performance are out this week. But what exactly does the data tell us? And more importantly, what do we say about the data?
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
According to TIMSS, math and science scores for U.S. students simply aren’t keeping pace with performance of students in foreign countries (particularly those in Asia). We’ve heard this story time and again, but TIMSS provides us some pretty clear data that we have a ways to go before our students are truly about to compete on the evolving global economic stage.
And then we have yesterday’s release of the Trial Urban District Assessment (or as it is affectionately know, the NAEP TUDA). This data set shows that students in our urban centers are making gains in math and reading. And the math scores are really showing promise. Of course, these urban scores are still below the national averages.
So what does it all tell us? With regard to NAEP TUDA, one has to assume that some of the interventions made possible through NCLB are working. Districts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, DC, and LA are prime targets for NCLB and Title I dollars, and these test results demonstrate that students in those schools are posting increases higher than the average American student. That speaks of promise and of possibility.
But juxtaposed with the TIMSS data, it sends up a warning flag. If we’re making gains at 2X, but our international counterparts are running at 3X, it doesn’t take a NAEP numbers cruncher to see that we are never going to catch up. How are we supposed to read all this?
The communications challenge here is identifying our goals, both in terms of policy and public perception. Do we seek to be the best in the world, or do we focus on the gains in our backyard? Does it matter how we are doing against Singapore if our Title I schools are making the gains necessary to put all students on a pathway to a good-paying job? And when are we going to see the quantitative proof of reading gains that we have witnesses anecdotally for the past two years?
At the end of the day, the message is simple. Our schools, particularly those in low-income communities are improving. Our focus on student achievement, effective assessment, and quality teaching is starting to have an impact. And by identifying what works in Houston, NYC, and other cities, we can glean what will work in other cities and towns across the country. We’re gaining the data to move the needle and get beyond the student performance stagnation we’ve experienced for the past few decades.
Yes, the TIMSS scores are disappointing. But sometimes we need to set the negative aside, and concentrate on the positive. Let’s look at what works, and use it to fix what doesn’t. Who knows? Those NAEP TUDA students may be just the answer we need to right the TIMSS ship in four or eight years.
On the Road Again
For the past few weeks, Eduflack has spent the majority of his time well beyond the DC beltway. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Virginia, Arkansas, and Louisiana to name just a few. And the coming weeks add Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Indiana, and Colorado. One thing’s clear, discussions of education reform are occurring well beyond Capitol Hill and One DuPont.
The discussions in these communities have been remarkable, both for what is discussed and what is not discussed. In virtually all states, educators are focused on improving opportunities for their students. The core message is not that of a high-quality high school diploma. Instead, the focus is a good-paying, secure job. Students are eager to take more and more math and science courses, even if they hate the content. For these students (and I spoke primarily with low-income students) they see STEM as the golden ticket to a good job and a good future.
What didn’t I hear? In visits to state departments of education, to school districts, and to classrooms, I can’t recall a single instance where I heard the acronym NCLB. Maybe it is just a part of life we’ve come to accept. Maybe it is irrelevant. Maybe it is too scary to say by name. Regardless, the decisions of state ed officials, superintendents, and educators seem to be driven my more practical, more day-to-day factors than the federal NCLB banner.
What does this all mean? To Eduflack, it means the intentions of NCLB may actually be working. For some of us, the law was never about high-stakes testing, teacher punishments, and accountability without effective interventions. No, for folks like Eduflack, NCLB was a vision for the future. It was a vision where every student has the opportunity to succeed. Where every classroom has research-based instruction and measurable student achievement. NCLB equates a nation of hope, of opportunity, and of success for all students who worked for it.
And that’s exactly what I’m seeing on my travels. Here in DC, we get lost in trial balloon legislative drafts, amendments to bills that will never see the light of day, and the most inside-iest of inside baseball. Outside of DC, we’re seeing educators doing whatever is necessary to give their kids a chance. The counter plant closings, lost jobs, and economic downturns with dual-enrollment courses, academic partnerships, and strong student-teacher relationships.
Makes us wonder who should be teaching whom, huh? I’ve long advocated we need to move the education reform debate from the ivory towers to Main Street USA. It was always a cute turn of the phrase. But it is also 100 percent true. The true impact of school reform is not felt on Maryland Ave., SW. Long-term impact can only be felt in those cities and towns across the country, where tomorrow’s leaders are busily taking the algebra, physics, and ELA classes they dread … but know they need to succeed.
The discussions in these communities have been remarkable, both for what is discussed and what is not discussed. In virtually all states, educators are focused on improving opportunities for their students. The core message is not that of a high-quality high school diploma. Instead, the focus is a good-paying, secure job. Students are eager to take more and more math and science courses, even if they hate the content. For these students (and I spoke primarily with low-income students) they see STEM as the golden ticket to a good job and a good future.
What didn’t I hear? In visits to state departments of education, to school districts, and to classrooms, I can’t recall a single instance where I heard the acronym NCLB. Maybe it is just a part of life we’ve come to accept. Maybe it is irrelevant. Maybe it is too scary to say by name. Regardless, the decisions of state ed officials, superintendents, and educators seem to be driven my more practical, more day-to-day factors than the federal NCLB banner.
What does this all mean? To Eduflack, it means the intentions of NCLB may actually be working. For some of us, the law was never about high-stakes testing, teacher punishments, and accountability without effective interventions. No, for folks like Eduflack, NCLB was a vision for the future. It was a vision where every student has the opportunity to succeed. Where every classroom has research-based instruction and measurable student achievement. NCLB equates a nation of hope, of opportunity, and of success for all students who worked for it.
And that’s exactly what I’m seeing on my travels. Here in DC, we get lost in trial balloon legislative drafts, amendments to bills that will never see the light of day, and the most inside-iest of inside baseball. Outside of DC, we’re seeing educators doing whatever is necessary to give their kids a chance. The counter plant closings, lost jobs, and economic downturns with dual-enrollment courses, academic partnerships, and strong student-teacher relationships.
Makes us wonder who should be teaching whom, huh? I’ve long advocated we need to move the education reform debate from the ivory towers to Main Street USA. It was always a cute turn of the phrase. But it is also 100 percent true. The true impact of school reform is not felt on Maryland Ave., SW. Long-term impact can only be felt in those cities and towns across the country, where tomorrow’s leaders are busily taking the algebra, physics, and ELA classes they dread … but know they need to succeed.
Putting Our Money on a Winning Proposition
In education, the focus is often on people first, results second, and the money third. We think of the teachers and the students, then on achievement, and only then do we really start talking about dollars. We talk of per student costs, and compare our per-pupil spending with similar districts or with those who are outperforming us. The punchline, inevitably, is that we need more dollars for our classrooms.
Eduflack was taken by the discussion of two pricetags this Sunday morning, one depicting the worst of times, the other the possible best of the future. The first was a preview of Ted Koppel’s program this evening on California’s prison system. By his numbers, it is now $43,200 per year to send a student to Harvard University. It costs the State of California $43,000 per year to incarcerate an individual (and that person gets $200 upon leaving prison to get their lives started).
We can leave it to the economists and statisticians to tell us the long-term community effect of moving a quarter of those individuals from prison into a two- or four-year postsecondary institution. The effect of seeing there are opportunities that come from schoolhouse doors, rather than leading to prison doors. It’s an age-old fight, but it is one that still remains important, particularly as we now see that postsecondary education is a necessary piece to a successful life.
As disheartening as the Koppel numbers are, education reformers around the nation should take note of the second pricetag, featured in a column written in today’s Washington Post by Marc Fisher. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601111.html?hpid=topnews) We’ve all talked the talk on student preparedness for postsecondary education. We’ve recited the numbers on remediation and how the majority of today’s high school grads simply lack the skills to succeed in college. Now we have a response.
In his piece, Fisher throws a spotlight on an important initiative happening on the campus of the University of the District of Columbia. At UDC, professors saw a 50-percent dropout rate in organic chemistry courses. And for those who stuck in the class, nearly a third received Fs. All of this in a course required of those students seeking a career in medicine.
On top of that, 80 percent of UDC students were taking remedial math classes. Makes it so one is ready to just give up on trying to encourage UDC’s students — many low-income or minority or first-generation college-goers — to prepare for college, attend college, stay in college, and graduate with the ability to earn jobs in demanding fields like medicine, engineering, math, and such.
UDC’s solution? A summer program designed to provide college readiness to UDC’s incoming freshmen and fill the instructional gaps left by DCPS (since that’s where many of UDC’s students come from). By UDC’s count, the program is reaping major rewards. And the cost? About $2,000 per student.
Currently, the UDC program is only serving a small number of students, working from grant money from The Washington Post Co. and the federal government. But the early indications are positive, with unexpected consequences. The math intervention effort is not only boosting math ability, but it has raised reading scores for those students 10 percent.
Sure, it’s a pilot. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea. As we look at the best ways to spend our education dollars, as we look at ways to increase college readiness and college going in underserved communities, maybe, just maybe, UDC is on to something. At the very least, they’ve demonstrated it doesn’t take the largest check to generate measurable results. Our K-12 schools and the defenders of the status quo could learn a lot from that.
Eduflack was taken by the discussion of two pricetags this Sunday morning, one depicting the worst of times, the other the possible best of the future. The first was a preview of Ted Koppel’s program this evening on California’s prison system. By his numbers, it is now $43,200 per year to send a student to Harvard University. It costs the State of California $43,000 per year to incarcerate an individual (and that person gets $200 upon leaving prison to get their lives started).
We can leave it to the economists and statisticians to tell us the long-term community effect of moving a quarter of those individuals from prison into a two- or four-year postsecondary institution. The effect of seeing there are opportunities that come from schoolhouse doors, rather than leading to prison doors. It’s an age-old fight, but it is one that still remains important, particularly as we now see that postsecondary education is a necessary piece to a successful life.
As disheartening as the Koppel numbers are, education reformers around the nation should take note of the second pricetag, featured in a column written in today’s Washington Post by Marc Fisher. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601111.html?hpid=topnews) We’ve all talked the talk on student preparedness for postsecondary education. We’ve recited the numbers on remediation and how the majority of today’s high school grads simply lack the skills to succeed in college. Now we have a response.
In his piece, Fisher throws a spotlight on an important initiative happening on the campus of the University of the District of Columbia. At UDC, professors saw a 50-percent dropout rate in organic chemistry courses. And for those who stuck in the class, nearly a third received Fs. All of this in a course required of those students seeking a career in medicine.
On top of that, 80 percent of UDC students were taking remedial math classes. Makes it so one is ready to just give up on trying to encourage UDC’s students — many low-income or minority or first-generation college-goers — to prepare for college, attend college, stay in college, and graduate with the ability to earn jobs in demanding fields like medicine, engineering, math, and such.
UDC’s solution? A summer program designed to provide college readiness to UDC’s incoming freshmen and fill the instructional gaps left by DCPS (since that’s where many of UDC’s students come from). By UDC’s count, the program is reaping major rewards. And the cost? About $2,000 per student.
Currently, the UDC program is only serving a small number of students, working from grant money from The Washington Post Co. and the federal government. But the early indications are positive, with unexpected consequences. The math intervention effort is not only boosting math ability, but it has raised reading scores for those students 10 percent.
Sure, it’s a pilot. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea. As we look at the best ways to spend our education dollars, as we look at ways to increase college readiness and college going in underserved communities, maybe, just maybe, UDC is on to something. At the very least, they’ve demonstrated it doesn’t take the largest check to generate measurable results. Our K-12 schools and the defenders of the status quo could learn a lot from that.
In the NAEP Scrum
It’s been almost a week now, and the dust following the release of the latest NAEP scores is just finally starting to settle. The story varies widely, depending on who you listen to and who you respect on such issues. This year’s reading and math NAEP scores demonstrate we have greatly improved instruction over the past few years. Or they show that we have actually taken a step backward. Progress or regress, it seems.
What is clear is that both math and reading scores have ticked upward, with math performance rising more than reading. What is even clearer, though, is that we still have much work to do. The education community is quibbling over the “meaning” of the small rise in reading scores and its implications for the future. It’s like listening to a faculty senate meeting, focusing on the personal periphery rather than the ultimate outcomes and impact.
But there is a lesson to be found in the stacks of disaggregated data and he said/she said debates. Set aside all of the rhetoric. Put away all of the interpretation. Forget all of the hidden meanings. What’s left? A national commitment to boosting student achievement.
For some, the scores were badges of success. For others, they were indicators of inadequacy. But for all, the NAEP scores were the tool for determining whether we have demonstrably improved student achievement. For once, the education industry was focused on outcomes, and not just on the inputs. We were talking results (or lack there of) and how to further improve those results.
Without question, there is MUCH work that still needs to be done to improve student proficiency in reading and math. The experts will spend the next few weeks determining the significance of these gains, comparing them to previous gains. But these scores do send a message to all willing to listen. Improvement is possible, but it requires significantly more work, attention, and resources. And that’s a far harder lesson to learn.
What is clear is that both math and reading scores have ticked upward, with math performance rising more than reading. What is even clearer, though, is that we still have much work to do. The education community is quibbling over the “meaning” of the small rise in reading scores and its implications for the future. It’s like listening to a faculty senate meeting, focusing on the personal periphery rather than the ultimate outcomes and impact.
But there is a lesson to be found in the stacks of disaggregated data and he said/she said debates. Set aside all of the rhetoric. Put away all of the interpretation. Forget all of the hidden meanings. What’s left? A national commitment to boosting student achievement.
For some, the scores were badges of success. For others, they were indicators of inadequacy. But for all, the NAEP scores were the tool for determining whether we have demonstrably improved student achievement. For once, the education industry was focused on outcomes, and not just on the inputs. We were talking results (or lack there of) and how to further improve those results.
Without question, there is MUCH work that still needs to be done to improve student proficiency in reading and math. The experts will spend the next few weeks determining the significance of these gains, comparing them to previous gains. But these scores do send a message to all willing to listen. Improvement is possible, but it requires significantly more work, attention, and resources. And that’s a far harder lesson to learn.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 