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


The EDifier

May 20, 2016

Affluent families spend most on college remediation courses

A new report out from DC-based think-tank, Education Reform Now, dug through 2011 federal data of college freshmen and found evidence that seems almost counterintuitive: nearly half of the first-year college students who took remedial coursework hailed from middle to upper-income families.

While this may come as a surprise to some, it did not to CPE.

If you recall, the first installment of our Path Least Taken series was descriptive in nature, illustrating the nationally-representative sample of non-college goers that a 2002 U.S. Department of Education study followed for a decade.

Our most intriguing finding was that roughly 12 percent of this group had not gone on to college by the end of the study, when the study participants would have been 26. While it was smaller than we anticipated, we were intent on learning more about these non-college goers, especially those that found success after high school graduation.

To begin with, we discovered that non-college goers were more apt to be male, were more ethnically and racially diverse, and were more likely to have parents whose highest level of education was high school than their college going peers.

In contrast, college goers tended to be female, have parents that possessed a degree and come from the upper end of the socioeconomic scale.

The fact that just a third of college goers come from lower income households— although it constitutes two-thirds of the non-college going population— is one of the reasons we were not surprised by the findings from Education Reform Now’s report.

In the Path Least Taken series, students from middle to upper income households were well-represented in the college going group, so it stands to reason that they would be duly represented among those who start their college career with remedial classes.

In total, families from all backgrounds shell out $1.5 billion a year to have students repeat coursework they should have mastered in high school.

Making sure educators and policymakers equip high school graduates with the knowledge and skills they need to compete and be successful, regardless of whether they enroll in college or enter the workforce, was one of the main aims of our original research. The collection of questions we pose to school leaders at the end of each and every study is designed to determine if we are doing just that.

Filed under: CPE — NDillon @ 10:18 am





May 17, 2016

Legislatures address teacher shortages

The Center for Public Education recently released its newest report Fixing the Holes in the Teacher Pipeline: An Overview of Teacher Shortages, which comes at a critical time when many state legislatures, local districts, and other national organizations are focusing on this issue. The report lays out best practices for preparing, recruiting, and retaining quality teachers.

Indiana’s Department of Education yesterday reported that it will be implementing the recommendations by their own Blue Ribbon Commission, many of which align with the CPE’s report including; partnering with Indiana University to address the shortage of special education teachers by increasing the supports given to current and prospective special education teachers; creating a full-time position to increase professional development and networking opportunities for teachers; and hosting the first teacher recruitment conference for students currently in high school (what CPE called “growing your own”).

Nevada is faced with a critical shortage as well. EdWeek has reported that it is using both short-term and long-term strategies such as fast-track teaching certifications, hiring bonuses for working in low-income schools, developing teacher recruiter positions, and working on new contracts which would increase pay for teachers.

For all districts faced with teacher shortage issues, keep in mind the questions CPE suggests asking about your district (listed below). Also, research and I (as a former teacher) agree that although a living wage salary is crucial, teachers most often report leaving a school or the profession due to poor working conditions rather than salary complaints. -Breanna Higgins

Questions for School Boards and District Leaders:

  • Do we have enough teachers? Are there schools or subject areas in the district that are harder to staff than others? Does the demographic make-up of our staff reflect that of our students?
  • Are our teachers qualified? Are all our teachers licensed in the area of their assignment? How many teachers have emergency credentials?
  • Are we able to recruit qualified teachers? How do our salaries compare to neighboring districts? Can we provide incentives in shortage areas? How effective are our induction programs?
  • Do we retain qualified teachers? What is our turnover rate? How does it compare to other districts? Do teachers feel supported in our schools?
  • Can we grow our own? Do we have partnerships with universities? Can we collaborate on recruiting and training qualified candidates in order to maintain a steady supply of good teachers in our schools?
Filed under: Public education,Report Summary,research,School boards,teachers — Breanna Higgins @ 11:59 am





May 4, 2016

Let’s think about time

Editor’s Note: Breanna Higgins is a former teacher and spring intern at CPE

Let’s start to think about time and realistic timelines for how long reform and school improvement really takes. This era of accountability expects superintendents to turnaround failing schools, or even whole districts, within a couple years. Each new innovative reform or program is expected to be the next great thing- often districts implement several new programs at the same time to increase the potential for success.

Instant gratification- instant improvement. Superintendents and school and district leaders want to see test scores rise instantly and show that their reforms worked. Unfortunately, this rarely happens. Test scores sometimes rise, but then flat line again quickly. It’s not necessarily because the reform didn’t work— it’s just that we need to be patient.

We need to devote years to strong and faithful implementation. Teachers need to be trained- in more than the week before school- in how to use the new programs. Teachers also need time to figure out how to teach effectively with these new changes and it will take years for teachers to become proficient in a new system. Teachers see reforms come and go so quickly that the “this too shall pass” mentality is not just a line- it is very real. Teachers don’t feel the need to become heavily invested in a new reform or program when they know it will be changed out again in a year or two.

A district that truly commits to a reform needs to commit long term. The reform needs to be rolled out in stages and implemented carefully. Timelines and hopes for seeing success should be realistic. Teachers are the main element of any reform and if they do not believe in the program, or believe it will be around long enough for them to care, it won’t have much of an impact. By committing to long-term action, teachers have time to adjust and see changes in the classroom and they are able to commit to a program that they see the district has committed to. The district needs to be willing to take the time to ride out the ups and downs of a reform. Some experts in school reform believe it takes five years simply to fully implement a new reform and that achievement results will follow from there.

School improvement takes time. Policymakers and communities need to be patient and allow reforms to be implemented well, and slowly, to see real improvement. A new program every year only ensures that most people “on the ground” will ignore it.

Filed under: Accountability,CPE,Public education,School boards — Breanna Higgins @ 3:15 pm





April 28, 2016

12th graders’ math scores drop, reading flatlines

And just when we had allowed ourselves to get giddy over record-shattering high school graduation rates.

NAEP, also known as the Nation’s Report card, released the results of its 2015 assessment of high school seniors’ math and reading proficiency. Like their 4th and 8th grade schoolmates, whose 2015 scores were published last fall, the nation’s 12th-graders either made no progress or dropped a few points, especially in mathematics. Worse, scores for the lowest performers fell the most in both subjects.

Let’s start with reading. The overall score was 1 point lower on the NAEP scale from two years ago, which is not a statistically significant change. However, 12th graders are performing 5 points lower compared to their peers in 1992, the first year the main-NAEP reading assessment was administered.

There was no noticeable change since 2013 in the scores of any racial/ethnic group, or in the achievement gaps between them.

Indeed, the biggest change was at the bottom. In just the last two years, the proportion of students who did not even read at the basic level grew, from 25 to 28 percent.  What this means in more tangible terms is that this group of soon-to-be-graduates cannot recognize the main purpose of expository text; cannot recognize the main purpose of an argument; and cannot explain a character’s action from a story description.

The math picture isn’t any rosier. The overall math score fell a significant 3 points on the NAEP scale. While this is still 2 points higher than in 2005 – the first administration of the test’s new math framework – it does represent a reversal after years of steady gains. As with reading, the math scores were relatively flat for every racial/ethnic group compared to 2013. One happy exception: scores for English language learners rose by 4 points.

Math also saw an increase of the wrong kind. A whopping 38 percent of high school seniors did not perform at the basic level in 2015, an increase of 3 points over 2013. This is troubling on its own merits. It is truly baffling when considering that 90 percent of seniors reported having taken Algebra II or a higher math course in high school.  We should see this group of low performers shrinking, not growing larger.

Of high interest to education policymakers and parents is the degree to which 12th graders are prepared for college work. Beginning in 2008, the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP, commissioned several studies linking NAEP performance levels to college readiness. Based on the analysis, just slightly more than a third of seniors in 2015 scored at a level showing they had the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in freshmen courses. But ready or not, two-thirds of them will be bound for two- and four-year colleges the October following graduation.

Why is this happening? Many advocates have been quick to point to policies like Common Core, too much testing, not enough testing, or whatever other bee sticks in their bonnets. But as I have written elsewhere, there is not enough information at this point to lay the blame on any one of these, although they surely warrant watching. Likewise, some observers have noted the increase in childhood poverty, which also deserves attention.

I think another explanation might be found in one of our great successes. High school graduation rates have exploded in just the last 10 years. In 2013, 81 percent of all high school students graduated within four years. We know from research that failing grades are high risk factors for students. Up until recently, these low performers would have dropped out before showing up in the NAEP data as seniors. The fact that they are still in school is a good thing, but it may also be dragging 12th grade scores down.

The truth is, it’s too soon for us to know for sure why this happened. But there are enough questions that schools should be examining to get us back on the right track.

  • Do the high-level courses students are taking in larger numbers actually represent high-level content?
  • Do schools have enough counselors and other trained professionals to not just make sure students stay in school, but have the support they need to perform academically?
  • Are teachers also supported as they implement higher standards in their classrooms?
  • Finally, are federal, state and local policymakers providing the resources high schools need to assure every student graduates ready to succeed in college, careers and life?
Filed under: Assessments,CPE,High school,NAEP,Reading,Testing — Tags: , — Patte Barth @ 10:52 am





April 14, 2016

What’s different about ESSA?

What’s Different about ESSA?

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) created the starting point for equity-based education reforms. It established categorical aid programs for specific subgroups that were at-risk of low academic achievement. “Title I” comes from this act- it created programs to improve education for low-income students. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was a reauthorization of ESEA which gave more power to the federal government to ensure that all students received an equitable education and that standardized testing was the vehicle to assess high-standards for schools.

In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) again reauthorized ESEA and changed much of the language and policies of NCLB. At its foundation, the law gave a lot of decision-making power back to the states. Although state’s still need to have high-standards, test their students, and intervene in low-performing schools, the state’s themselves will have the power to determine the “how”.

This table below provides the key differences between NCLB and ESSA and was compiled from several sources (listed at the bottom) which provide a great deal more detail and specifics for those interested in learning more.

 

ESSA Table

 

-Breanna Higgins

 

Sources:

http://www.ncesd.org/cms/lib4/WA01000834/Centricity/Domain/52/GeneralNCLB%20vs%20ESSA%20Comparison%20-%20Title%20I-Federl%20Programs.pdf

http://neatoday.org/2015/12/09/every-student-succeeds-act/

http://all4ed.org/essa/

http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/policy/ESEA_NCLB_ComparisonChart_2015.pdf

Filed under: Accountability,CPE,ESSA — Tags: , — Breanna Higgins @ 1:10 pm





« Newer PostsOlder Posts »
RSS Feed