The EDifierNovember 5, 2009 We’re starting to see the fallout as district after district struggles with their education budgets. In today’s Washington Post, the article “Montgomery school budget solution could cost millions in fines” outlines how the Montgomery County, Md. district (and possibly Prince George’s County, too) faces fines for “artificially” satisfying a state law that sets a minimum funding level for education.
Meanwhile, according to the Honolulu Advertiser, Secretary Arne Duncan is criticizing Hawaii for using its education stimulus funds for something other than education, in the article “Hawaii stimulus funds use draws fire.”
How is your district coping with budget cuts?
–Rebecca St. Andrie
October 30, 2009 Last week, Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates released the results of a study they conducted of 890 public school teachers. The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Joyce Foundation. Among other things, Public Agenda wanted to find out why teachers enter the field, their thoughts on the pros and cons of teaching, and the teachers’ future plans.
Teaching for a living: How teachers see the profession today, identifies three groups of teachers: The idealists (23 percent of the sample), the contented (37 percent of the sample), and the disheartened (40 percent of the sample) and describe the characteristics of teachers in each group.
As we’ve heard time and again, and the survey found, those most disheartened with teaching work in low-income schools, view teaching as overly demanding, and cite lack of administrative suppport as a major drawback to teaching.
At the Center, we wanted to know what makes teachers satisfied. Our Wanted: Good teachers looks at the current research on teachers and offers some things districts can do to recruit the best teachers and keep them. –Pamela Karwasinski
October 29, 2009 I got an e-mail earlier today with the subject line “States have lowered ‘proficiency’ bar under NCLB.” Of course that caught my eye, so I went in for a closer look.
What I found was that the e-mail was based on a report released earlier today by National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007. I had written about a similar report NCES released two years ago, based on 2005 NAEP scores, so I went to check out this latest version.
What I found did not quite match the gloomy headline. When comparing the rigor of each state’s standard for proficiency, only a handful of states lowered their standards in a particular subject. Eighth grade math had the most states that decreased their standards (9 states). But at the same time, three states increased the rigor of their standards. Not exactly a mass lowering of standards.
We are right to be concerned about states lowering standards. However, the question should be whether states have the right standards, not whether they have been increased or decreased.
A state may have such high standards that they are unreachable by most students. While it’s good to have a high goal, standards need to be reachable to be effective. Also, a state may have increased its standards but if it is starting off with very low standards, it still may be expecting much less of their students than the state that lowered its standards. So when comparing state standards, don’t get caught up in whether they increased or decreased. Rather, determine whether the standards ask enough of their students so they will be prepared for life after high school.
On that note here are some other findings from the report.
- The differences where states set their proficiency standards vary greatly.
- The difference in scores between the states with the five highest and lowest standards is comparable to the difference in scores between NAEP’s Basic and Proficient levels.
- States set lower standards for proficiency in reading
- In grade four reading, thirty-one states set their standards for proficiency below NAEP’s Basic level.
- At the eighth-grade level, fifteen states did the same.
- States had higher standards for proficiency in math than in reading.
- At the fourth grade level, just seven states set their proficiency standard below NAEP’s Basic level
- Eight states did so at the eighth-grade level.
- States with higher standards for proficiency had fewer students scoring proficient on state tests.
- States were more likely to have decreased their standards in the eighth grade than in fourth grade.
- At the fourth-grade level, twelve states substantively changed their reading assessment between 2005 and 2007. Of those twelve, four states increased their standards, four states decreased their standard, and the other four kept the rigor basically the same.
- However, at the eighth-grade level fourteen states substantively changed their reading assessment between 2005 and 2007. Seven of those states decreased the rigor of their standards, while the other seven kept the rigor relatively the same.
- Similar results were found in math.
Keep in mind:
- NAEP does not necessarily define proficiency the same as states do.
- NAEP defines Proficiency as: Competency over challenging subject matter, not grade-level performance.
- NAEP defines Basic as: Partial mastery of skills necessary for Proficient performance.
- No country, not even the highest performing countries, would have 100 percent of their students reach NAEP’s Proficiency level.
- Some leading assessment experts have stated that proficiency for accountability purposes probably lies somewhere between NAEP’s Basic and Proficient levels.
For more information on how NAEP’s proficiency levels compare to state’s check out the Center for Public Education’s The proficiency debate: A guide to NAEP achievement levels. –Jim Hull
October 28, 2009 A recent report from the U.S. Department of Education found that the national graduation rate to be around 74 percent. But does this mean that nearly a quarter of high school students drop out? Not necessarily.
First of all, most graduation rates, like the one calculated by the department, are “on-time” graduation rates. These rates only count those students who graduate high school within the traditional four years after entering the 9th grade. So students who take longer than four years to graduate (late graduates) are counted as non-graduates in most graduation rates.
According to the Center’s Better late than never report, counting late graduates would increase the graduation rate another 5 percentage points, raising it to nearly 80 percent. Keep in mind, these late graduates completed the same requirements as their classmates who graduated on time. They just needed a little extra time to do so.
It should also be noted that students who earn less than a standard diploma—such as those students who earn a certificate of completion /attendance —are typically not counted as graduates as well. These students would add nearly 8 percentage points to the graduate rate. However, unlike late graduate, these students have not completed the same requirements as other high school graduates, which is why they are typically not included in most high school graduation rates. Furthermore, these students are not nearly as successful after high school as their classmates who earned a standard high school diploma.
Of course, no matter if the graduation rate is 74 or 80 percent, it is still far too low, especially for minority and low-income students. International assessments show that the U.S. students perform fairly well in the early grades but fall behind their international peers as they move into high school. This shows many of the reforms aimed at elementary schools have made a difference but now it’s time to focus on high schools as well.
High schools need to ensure all students leave high school with the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in college or the workforce. To do so they must predict which students may not graduate, intervene with programs to ensure students stay on track for graduation, organize schools in such a way to prevent them from dropping out, and recover those students who do fall off track. If high schools put such systems into place more students will leave high school with the skills they need for life. –Jim Hull
For more information, check out the Center’s guide to calculating graduation rates and dropout prevention programs.
I was reading a post by Claus von Zastrow, “Message to Educonomists: You Can’t Ignore the Important Stuff,” when an aside caught my eye:
“I’ve always found it curious that so many reformers who insist that every child can learn believe teachers are ineducable. Every child has limitless potential, they say, but don’t waste your money on developing teachers’ talents.”
It’s an interesting observation. I wonder if part of the problem stems from the difficulty researchers have had in identifying what makes a good teacher? Four years ago, the Center for Public Education reviewed teacher quality research and found that there was no single factor that automatically assured you a good teacher.
Now, as we’re preparing a new research review, we’re finding that some factors are coming clearer. While there still isn’t one magic quality that guarantees a good teacher, there are a few qualities that have been associated with effective teaching. Look for the full report in the upcoming weeks at the Center.
In any case, I agree with Claus: Good teachers are made, not born. We just need to focus more on what makes them that way. –Rebecca St. Andrie
« Newer Posts — Older Posts »
 RSS Feed |
|
Print