Learn About: 21st Century | Charter Schools | Homework
Home / Edifier


The EDifier

May 23, 2013

Parent Trigger Laws are likely to fire blanks

If turning around a persistently low-performing school were easy, we would not have persistently low-performing schools.  In truth, schools that languish at the academic bottom are more often an ongoing source of frustration for the hard-working teachers, parents and students who attend them and the districts that manage them.  Yet new laws that give parents the power to take charge of their failing neighborhood school seem to suggest that climbing out of this hole is as simple as swapping the old model out for a new one.  It’s not.

So-called Parent Trigger Laws have been enacted in seven states and are being considered in at least a dozen more.  The laws grant parents the authority to force a school takeover providing the school is low-performing and a majority of parents agree to the takeover in writing. The laws enjoy wide appeal. According to the most recent Kappan/Gallup poll (2012), 70 percent of the general public and 76 percent of public school parents favor “allowing parents to petition to remove the leadership and staff at failing schools.”

Look, I’m a big supporter of efforts to strengthen parents’ voices in public education, especially among those who feel powerless. I know that change works best when all families, not just a vocal few, are meaningful partners alongside their schools and district leadership.

The authors of Parent Trigger Laws will say their intent is to empower parents. But, as with so many things, good intentions alone do not translate into good actions. There are two big problems with the laws. One, they supercede rather than facilitate school district-parent partnerships, even though collaboration is key to investing the school community in student success.  Then having put parents in charge, the laws give them inadequate tools that are not up to the task of effecting change.

While state laws vary, they all specify a limited number of strategies that parents must choose from in order to reform their low-performing school once they pull the trigger. Each of the seven states with current laws includes turning the school over to a charter operator as one option. Other states also have options for vouchers, school closure, replacing the staff and/or the principal. Only Ohio offers parents more than three options.

If you’re feeling déjà vu, you’re not alone. These “reform” strategies are embedded in NCLB, Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants (SIG).  A major difference is that these federal policies also have a provision that offers a little more wiggle room so those on the ground are better able to craft improvement plans specific to their unique situations. The “transformation” model still requires schools to replace the principal. But once that’s done, they have multiple options for developing a reform plan more tailored to local needs that includes such things as professional development, rigorous curriculum, new schedules, and many others.  Not surprisingly, the transformation model is the one most often pursued by turnaround schools, including a full three-quarters of SIG recipients.

Parent Trigger Laws don’t have any flexibility. And this is what we know about the options parents are given: they are far from proven strategies. The best you can say is that the evidence is mixed.

For example, we know that about only one in five charter schools outperforms its traditional counterpart. Newer research shows that schools managed by established Charter Management Organizations have a slightly better track record than independently run charters, but still not significantly different from traditional schools.

Closing a school or replacing the staff aren’t surefire solutions either. Plus many communities either don’t have other schools to send students to or enough qualified candidates to recruit as replacements.

New leadership is the one exception that shows promise as a strategy, but again, only if the situation warrants a change. Principals are second only to teachers in their impact on student learning. Good leaders set the tone for the school and can create supportive environments for teachers and students alike. But note that even experienced principals may take as long as three to five years to become effective in their new role.

Clearly, we can’t tolerate sending children to failing schools. But we also need to recognize that turning around such a school can be hard, messy and will likely look different in different places.  Parents are an important part of this work, including demanding action when it’s called for. But it also takes teachers, supportive administrators, engaged leadership and yes, resources. Parent Trigger Laws can pretend that a petition and pre-fab solutions are enough. But they are no replacement for good communication; a well-researched, customized plan; a relentless focus on improvement; and strong collaboration between schools, districts and parents.

This entry also appeared in the Huffington Post.

Filed under: Charter Schools,CPE,Parents,Principals,Public education — Tags: , , , — Patte Barth @ 8:53 am




April 26, 2013

The common core: truths, untruths and ambiguities

Educators in 46 states and DC are deep in the process of implementing new “common core” standards into their classrooms. But an emerging anti-core backlash may render their efforts moot in several states.

For readers who may not know, the common core state standards are intended to define the knowledge and skills in English language arts (ELA) and math that high school graduates will need for success in college and 21st century jobs. The standards were drafted by associations representing the nation’s governors and state education chiefs through a process involving experts and stakeholders and included a two-part public review. They have been endorsed by business leaders , teachers unions  and a bipartisan array of policymakers including President Obama and Jeb Bush. Within two years of their finalization, they were voluntarily adopted by all but four states.

Despite their high-profile supporters, not everyone is feeling the common core love and a handful of early adopting states are experiencing second thoughts. Some critics, like Samuel Goldman writing in the American Conservative, challenge the whole idea of national academic standards, voluntary or otherwise, as an erosion of federalism. Others, like education historian Diane Ravitch, question the wisdom of widespread investment in “untested” standards, especially when attached to real consequences for students, teachers and schools.

These are legitimate debates for us to have. Indeed, something this central to public education demands it. School districts also have real worries about meeting the timeline — the standards are due to be tested in 2014-15 — and getting all of the necessary pieces in place so students will be ready.  Make no mistake. This is a huge undertaking involving every moving part of the education system.

Still others challenge whether the new common core standards are worthwhile targets for students. Unfortunately, this backlash is being fueled by some critics’ misreading of the standards, some unknowns, and more than a few whoppers.

What follows is my attempt to clarify what is true, untrue and ambiguous regarding some of the claims made about the standards themselves so we can focus on the conversation that we need to have about their appropriate role in a national education agenda:

  • Not true: “The common core standards are dumbed down.”  My first reaction to this charge is that whoever believes this has not looked at current standards in many states.  The conservative-leaning Fordham Foundation did just that. Comparing all state standards to the common core, the authors determined that the core are “clearly superior” to 39 states’ math standards and to 37 states in ELA. Three states had “superior” ELA standards to the core. Everything else was about the same.
  • Not true with a caveat: “Classic literature will be crowded out.” A classic misreading of the ELA standards prompted by a common core recommendation that reading at the high school level should be 30 percent literary and 70 percent informational. On the surface that looks like a dramatic shift. But only if one assumes that all of the reading would happen in the English classroom. In fact, a distinguishing characteristic of the common core — one I applaud — is that the ELA standards define specific benchmarks for reading and writing in Social Studies, Science and technical subjects. There’s a good reason for this: American students perform well internationally when it comes to reading literature, but their performance falls when reading for information. But this also means that teachers of those other subjects should be responsible for those particular standards. And that’s the caveat: English teachers have every right to complain if they have to shoulder the full reading burden. At the same time, their colleagues in other subjects were not prepared to teach reading and writing in their subject area and will require some coaching and support.

As to the claim that great literary works will be de-emphasized or not taught at all , I refer readers to the recommended reading in the common core: Shakespeare, Twain, Longfellow, Ovid, Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Yeats, Neruda … you get the idea.

  • True. “The common core does not require cursive writing.” Not true. “Schools cannot teach cursive writing.” This one is just silly, and I suspect it was a slow news day when this rumor got started. Just because something is not specifically addressed in the standards does not mean it is prohibited from being taught.
  • Not true: “8th graders will no longer be able to take Algebra 1.”  See “cursive writing.” Nothing precludes districts from offering Algebra 1 to 8th graders. The core authors even provide a way to organize a “compacted” middle school math program for students who are ready for high-level math in 8th grade.
  • True: “The common core are internationally benchmarked.” William H. Schmidt, the nation’s foremost expert in international math performance, found that the common core-math standards are comparable to the highest-achieving nations. He further found that “most states have a long way to go” to equal them.
  • The jury is still out. “The common core will make every graduate college and career-ready.” Twenty years of research shows that all young people need a high school experience that prepares them for both post-secondary education and good jobs. The common core standards seem to provide a good map for getting there. Whether or not we succeed, however, depends on whether schools can retool effectively, especially given the short deadline and tight budgets. It will require new curriculum and instructional materials; more robust assessments and technology to support them; professional development for teachers and administrators. It will not just involve school districts, but state departments of education, higher education and early education, too. It demands considerable resources to carry out.

Lastly, success will require good communication with parents, teachers and the wider community. Schools will need their support to make change happen, something they’re not likely to get if the information the public gets is wrong.

This article first appeared in the Huffington Post.

 

Filed under: 21st century education,CPE,International Comparisons,national standards,Public education — Tags: , — Patte Barth @ 4:21 pm




April 4, 2013

Blame the adults not the tests

I have no problem with a debate about the proper role of standardized testing in our public schools. Standardized tests are not perfect but play a vital role in improving student achievement. However, exactly what role is not clear and is certainly open for debate.

While Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post admits that standardized tests are a vital tool in improving student achievement, he essentially blames them for the cheating crisis in Atlanta and elsewhere. Arguing, the reliance on standardized test scores to make decisions about bonuses drove otherwise honorable adults in Atlanta’s classrooms to cheat.

I whole heartily disagree with Mr. Robinson’s thesis. The tests didn’t make the adults cheat, the adults made that decision. Whether it was the teachers themselves or administrators that encouraged such actions, no one is to blame for the cheating than those adults who took part in the cheating directly or ordered that wrong answers be changed. Those are the ones to blame not the tests.

It should be noted Atlanta made significant gains on NAEP– where there is no evidence of cheating –during this time as well which shows that most Atlanta teachers and administrators responded to the pressures to raise student achievement by actually teaching and not cheating. Unfortunately, their hard work is being overshadowed by a number of teachers and administrators who decided to cheat instead of facing the reality they were not meeting the needs of their students.

It is true that Atlanta may have put too much emphasis on test scores alone. As I showed in Building a Better Evaluation System and CPE encourages with data-first.org, no one indicator can accurately evaluate the true effectiveness of a teacher, administrator or school. If Atlanta wanted to reward their most effective teachers and administrators with bonuses their effectiveness should have be measured using multiple measures such as observations, student learning objectives, or portfolios along with standardized test scores. Using multiple measures not only provides a more accurate measure of  true effectiveness but it would also lessen the likelihood those being evaluated can manipulate the results by cheating.

Another reason using multiple measures would help is while teachers should be evaluated on how much they improve their students’ achievement—as measures by their students’ standardized test scores—such measures do not provide any feedback on how they can improve their students’ performance in the future. As such, a teacher who received a low rating based solely on their students’ test scores may resort to cheating to save their job or get a bonus while a teacher who received a low rating but was provided feedback on how to improve their performance is more likely to modify their instructional techniques instead.

Using multiple measures to evaluate teachers and administrators lessens the chances of cheating but that does not mean that Atlanta’s reliance on test scores caused those involved to cheat. If only those teachers and administrators who cheated had more faith in their students and their abilities to teach, more Atlanta students would be better off today. – Jim Hull

Filed under: NAEP,Pay for Performance,Public education,Teacher evaluation,Testing — Tags: , , , , — Jim Hull @ 9:36 am




March 22, 2013

What is it about Finland?

American education is suffering from Finn envy.  While the U.S. has been steadily but slowly climbing its way out of the mid-rankings on PISA — the international assessment of 15-year-olds — little Finland has been knocking the academic socks off of its OECD peers in math, reading and science.  So what do the Finns have that we don’t?

A lot has been made about the differences in culture. As many observers point out Finland is smallish, fairly homogenous and has a low poverty rate, slightly over three percent compared to our approximately 20 percent, and so they question how much of the Finnish way would transfer to our massive and massively complex system.

Even so, American educators and policymakers are so eager to uncover the Finn’s secret, they have created a new tourist industry for this off-the-beaten-track Scandinavian country. Interestingly, what they find both validates and contradicts reform policies advocated here in the U.S.

For one, Finland does not administer standardized tests  which has been a dominant feature of education improvement policies in the U.S. for over a decade. Homework is put off until high school in favor of play for younger students. Another surprise is that children aren’t required to start school until age seven, although voluntary preschool is available to all six-year-olds. Observers like me who believe data-driven policies and making Pre-k available to four-year-olds will help raise achievement won’t find much support here.

Finland also dishes up a potential moment of truth for so-called “reform” advocates, for the idea of merit pay, competition and other market solutions are alien concepts to their view of schooling. As one Finnish education official put it: “Real winners do not compete.”

There is one lesson that nearly all the edu-tourists take away, however. Teachers enjoy a high position of respect in Finnish society.  Finland actively recruits the top 10 percent of its college graduates to pursue master’s degrees in education, a credential most teachers possess. Teachers are trusted to develop lessons, design and administer assessments and grade students on their own. They also enjoy smaller classes and less time in front of students than their American counterparts. Those voices in the U.S. who call for bolstering the teaching profession as essential to improving achievement — a group in which I include myself — will find a great deal of support in the Finnish model.

An article in the Atlantic raises another characteristic of Finnish education that we have tended to overlook but that the Finns credit with their success.  The article’s author, Anu Partanen, explains:

Decades ago, when the Finnish school system was badly in need of reform, the goal of the program that Finland instituted, resulting in so much success today, was never excellence. It was equity.

Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background income or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.

Equity in Finland is established through equal funding, free school meals, health care and access to guidance and counseling.  There are very few private schools. All schooling, Pre-k through college, is free. Apparently, investments in schools and children do make a difference.

To the skeptics, however, demography still explains everything about the gap between Finland and the U.S.  To this, Partanen cites research by Samuel Abrams of Columbia University who compared Finland to neighboring Norway, similarly homogenous but whose approach to education more closely resembles the U.S. Norway, like the U.S. and unlike Finland, is not far from the OECD average on PISA. But there are some takeaways that could be instructive for the U.S.

First, our efforts at equitable funding have not closed the wide financial gap between high- and low-poverty districts. Second, the investments we make in child services are pitiful compared to our international peers. Finally, greater attention to recruiting strong candidates into teaching and preparing them well, as well as developing effective school principals can go a long toward assuring all students get a good public education. Who knows? We might even be able to at least reduce our reliance on standardized tests.

Filed under: CPE,funding,International Comparisons,Public education,teachers — Tags: , , , — Patte Barth @ 12:54 pm




March 7, 2013

John Stossel, funky charts and Simpson’s paradox

John Stossel was on Fox and Friends this morning to promote an upcoming show about public schools. Remember, this is the guy who gave us Stupid in America – his ABC documentary from a few years back about our allegedly failing schools. During his segment, he claimed that “America has tripled spending, but test scores haven’t improved.”  The culprits? Teachers unions, school boards and other unnamed bureaucrats. Viewers were then shown a graph that indeed featured a flat line representing test scores over 40 years (improvement 1 point) with a second line escalating to $149,000 over the same period. The source was given as NCES. This got my fact-checking synapses sparking.

While I could not find the exact graph they showed on TV, Stossel did post this rather snazzy display on his blog with the same data:

Go ahead and take a moment to admire the work of the Fox News graphics department. Ok, now let’s talk data. This chart shows scores for three subjects (math, reading and science) and dollar figures (the “cost of education”) from 1970 to 2010. While not noted, I’m assuming the data source is still NCES.

This may get a little wonky, but stay with me.  NCES reports trend data over four decades for only two tests:  the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Long-Term Trends (LTT) and the SAT. NCES also has international test scores, but that data only goes back to the 1990s so that couldn’t be what Stossel used.  The SAT does not assess science, which leaves NAEP LTT as the only possibility. It’s not a perfect match. The last NAEP LTT administration was in 2008 although Stossel’s chart shows data to 2010. But I’m going to assume that he fudged a little on the timeframe because nothing else qualifies.

NAEP LTT is given to a representative sample of students age nine, 13 and 17. I’m also going to assume that his analysis is based on 17-year-olds because the data matches his in reading and comes closest in math (more on this later).  Between 1971 and 2008, LTT reading scores for 17-year-olds have been relatively flat, posting an increase of just 1 point (not 1% as shown on Stossel’s chart, but we’ll blame the designer for that common mistake).  Here’s what it looks like:

Now let’s have some fun. Let’s look at the same test scores disaggregated by race and ethnicity:

Note that every group improved more than the overall score did: White 17-year-olds by 2 points with their Black and Hispanic classmates gaining a whopping 25 and 17 points respectively. This gives me a chance to talk about Simpson’s paradox.  The paradox occurs when “a trend that appears in different groups of data disappears when these groups are combined, and the reverse trend appears for the aggregate data.”  In this case, the overall trend for 17-year-olds is flat while each group gained, some groups by a lot. The reason is that the distribution of racial/ethnic groups has changed significantly between 1975 and 2008. Here is the distribution of the NAEP samples for the two years:

The proportion of Black and Hispanic 17-year-olds is larger while the proportion of White students in 2008 is 25 percentage points lower than it was in 1975. Even though Black and Hispanic performance also increased by a lot, they were still lower-performing than their White peers in 2008. Thus, all groups gain, but when their performance is combined the overall trend is flat.

Clearly, no one would argue that an achievement gap, though improving, is acceptable and we can move on to other things. But it’s just as absurd to look at these gains and find evidence of failing schools, as Stossel does.  And the absurdity doesn’t end there. Stossel, in turns out, is a master cherry picker of data. Let’s look at the rest of NAEP Long Term Trends:

  • Reading, 13-year-olds, 1971-2008: Overall scores +12; Black students +23; Hispanic +24.
  • Reading, 9-year-olds, 1971-2008: Overall +5; Black +21, Hispanic +10.
  • Mathematics, 17-year-olds, 1978 (first year tested)-2008: Overall +6, Black +19, Hispanic +17.
  • Mathematics, 13-year-olds, 1978-2008: Overall +17, Black +32, Hispanic +17.
  • Mathematics, 9-year-olds,  1978-2008: Overall +24, Black +32, Hispanic +30.

Notice a pattern?  If one were to apply Stossel’s grossly oversimplified analysis of education cost to scores — and I’m not saying you should — but if you did, you would have to say our public schools are producing a return on our investment.   Then again, how he got those cost figures is another topic for another day.

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Data,Demographics,Public education — Tags: , , , — Patte Barth @ 2:46 pm




Older Posts »
RSS Feed