Home > Blog

The EDifier

March 18, 2010

Research the blueprint

Filed under: 21st century education,Graduation rates,Growth Models,High school,Pay for Performance,teachers — Tags: 21st century education, Graduation rates, linkedin, NCLB, Pay for Performanc, policies, standards, teachers — Jim Hull @ 7:28 am

The time has finally come. Earlier this week President Obama sent his “blueprint” to revise the No Child Left Behind Act up to Capital Hill. The major shift in accountability is the proposal to move from expecting students to be “proficient” by 2014 to the expectation students will be “college- and career-ready” by 2020.

Furthermore, the blueprint proposes schools be evaluated beyond the percent of students passing a test in a single year by allowing schools to be judged on the amount of growth their students have made over time as well as how many students earned a high school diploma. However, it isn’t clear if schools would receive credit for those students who take more than four years to graduate high school.

The blueprint also focused on teachers by significantly reworking NCLB’s teacher quality provisions. Instead of evaluating teachers based on qualifications, the blueprint would require states to develop an evaluation system to identify effective teachers. There is also a provision to provide incentives for states and districts to pay teachers based on their performance.

The blueprint is quite general, so it is far too early to determine if the proposed new federal accountability system will better, worse, or just different from NCLB. However, during these months as Congress and administration start putting the details together, check out the research behind many of their ideas so you can be an informed advocate for an accountability system that will help ensure more students are prepared for the 21st Century. Just click on the links above to get a quick summary of what the research says about these important educational areas. –Jim Hull

Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (0) |

March 10, 2010

Getting to know the new national standards

Filed under: national standards — Tags: linkedin, standards — Jim Hull @ 3:32 pm

Earlier today, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA) released a draft of the K-12 common standards. All but two states (Alaska and Texas) have signed onto the common core standards initiative but this is our first look at the proposed K-12 standards. And if you have an opinion, CCSSO and NGA would like your feedback.

Before you do, check out the Center’s A new conversation on national standards? to gain the inside scoop on the ins and outs of national standards. –Jim Hull

Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (0) |

January 14, 2010

Ranking states and talking national standards: Does it get any more controversial?

Filed under: Public education,Report Summary,national standards — Tags: linkedin, Report, standards — Jim Hull @ 4:28 pm

It’s officially the start of the new year. EdWeek has released its annual Quality Counts report, which has ushered in the new year for the past 13 years. As in the past, it starts off the year in education with a bang by grading states on their education policies and performance.

This year’s valedictorian: Maryland, which earned a B-plus across the six indicators of performance and policies for which states were evaluated.

Does this mean that Maryland has the best schools? Not necessarily. Several organizations rank states on their educational quality, and each has its own way of doing so. Seeing your state ranked high in one report but low another is awfully confusing. To find out why rankings may differ, check out the Center’s Round-up of national education report cards.

However, the real story in this year’s edition is how states are dealing with national common standards movement. Some of the key findings include:

Most states have looked to other states when developing and revising their academic standards, but few states have compared or benchmarked their standards to other countries’ standards.
Many states see significant challenges in developing common standards. States are concerned about:
- The high level of stakeholder input and support needed to move the common-standards movement forward in their states (18 states).
- Disruptions to ongoing state efforts (17 states)
- Misalignment between state expectations and common standards (16 states)
- Insufficient quality, content, or rigor of common standards (14 states)
- Complex testing and accountability implementation (14 states)
States are less concerned about the impact common standards will have on local control or about any difficulties due to the initiative’s aggressive timeline.

For information on the arguments for and against common standards, check out the Center’s A new national conversation about standards. –Jim Hull

Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (0) |

December 8, 2009

What to expect from special education students

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Report Summary,special education,teachers — Tags: linkedin, NCLB, standards, teachers — Jim Hull @ 8:42 am

As a former special education student, I was quite pleased that the Center on Education Policy found that special education students have been making academic gains in most states since 2006. The bad news, however, is that special education students are still performing far below their peers.

Of course many people are not surprised by this gap. They think, well, these students are in special education for a reason. But what they don’t realize is that many of these students have the mental capacity to perform just as well as their peers.

As the Center’s recent report Special Education: A better perspective points out, many in the special education community argue that the majority of special education students, with support, can perform just as well as their peers. As a matter of fact, one study the Center’s report cited estimated that only 10 to 15 percent of all special education students have a severe handicap. Most are diagnosed with disabilities that do not even necessarily mean their mental ability is reduced.

For example, there is no reason students with physical handicaps can’t perform as well as their peers–but they are classified as special education students. And nearly 80 percent of special education students spend at least 80 percent of their school day in a regular classroom.

I, along with many of my friends, was part of that 80 percent. For the most part, we have led pretty successful lives after high school. Many of us have earned bachelor’s degrees and even graduate degrees. Needing special help to get through elementary and high school didn’t impede us from reaching our goals.

And our goals were set high. From the first day we met with our resource teacher, Joanne Daniels, she not only expected a lot from us but insisted we expect a lot from ourselves. There is no doubt I and many others of her former students would not be where we are today without her.

Was it always easy? Of course not! There were a lot of tears, and frustration reared its ugly head from time to time, but never from Mrs. Daniels. She always kept her eye on the big picture and kept reminding us how capable we were.

At first we didn’t really buy into it. My friends and I figured it was easier to think of ourselves as dumb than to actually think we could succeed at school if we just put in some effort. It was easier to try to make our classmates laugh than to study or finish our homework. But like a boxer with a great jab, she wore us down. By the time we were set to go onto high school we knew we were prepared. Not only did we graduate from high school, unlike way too many other special education students, many of us went on to earn a college degree.

There is no doubt in my mind I wouldn’t be where I am today without the high expectations of Mrs. Daniels. But as a policy researcher, it pains me to see so many special education students performing so poorly when I too believe they can be successful.

Does it take more than high expectations? Of course. But without high expectations there isn’t much chance of continuing the trend of closing the achievement gap between special education students and their peers. – Jim Hull

Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (0) |

October 29, 2009

Comparing state standards

Filed under: Report Summary,national standards — Tags: linkedin, Report, standards — Jim Hull @ 3:42 pm

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

Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (1) |

Older Posts »