Group items tagged

When the La Cima Elementary Charter School in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, gave out its family survey in February, administrators were thrilled that about 95 percent of families who responded were satisfied or highly satisfied with the three-year-old school. But that survey was not counted by the Department of Education in its annual progress report. The city uses a standardized environment survey that it distributes to parents and teachers every March, and La Cima refused to use it.

New York City's Department of Education recently released their 'progress reports' for all the middle and elementary schools for the 2010-2011 school year. For each school they have a complicated formula that assigns up to 60 points for 'progress', up to 25 points for 'achievement', and up to 15 points for 'school environment'. The scores are tallied and out of the 1100 schools, the bottom 3%, which is around 33 are labeled as an 'F.' When a school gets an F, they are on probation and could get shut down and turned into a charter school or other sanctions. Even if it doesn't get shut down, it is pretty embarrassing when schools get this grade, particularly when they know that they don't deserve this label.

Mayor Bloomberg likes to boast of the "gains" made in city schools during his tenure, but the test scores and graduation rates he cites have long been suspect. Want to know why? As Susan Edelman reported in last Sunday's Post, the folks at struggling Washington Irving HS in Manhattan apply a major, um, fudge factor.

When the Thomas B. Fordham Institute talks, people in the education policy community listen. The right-of-center think tank's staff includes some of the most well-known names in the education community, including Checker Finn, who has authored more than 40 books on education reform over the past two decades. A few weeks ago, Fordham released a report that claimed that the nation's efforts to close achievement gaps might be coming at the expense of our "talented tenth." Those are students who score in the top 10 percent on standardized tests. And again folks listened.

New education reforms often translate into big money for private groups. Following the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, states paid millions of dollars annually for companies to develop and administer the standardized tests required under the law. Companies also cashed in on a provision mandating tutoring for students at struggling schools. Now, a movement to overhaul the teaching profession is creating another source of revenue for those in the business of education. More than half of states are changing their laws to factor student test scores into teacher evaluations and adding requirements for the classroom observations used to rate teachers. The main intent of the new laws is to identify which teachers are doing a good, bad, or mediocre job and to help them improve. One early outcome of such recent legislation, however, is a booming market that sells services and products to help states and school districts scrambling to meet the new standards.

Imagine you are David Tepper, a 54-year-old guy with $5 billion in the bank. You've played the Wall Street game all your adult life, and you've scored huge wins, over and over. Now what? Tepper, a hedge fund manager who lives in Livingston, has found his answer: He is jumping into the political game in New Jersey, promising to spend huge bucks over the long term to change the state of play on school reform, starting with tenure.

When it released the 2011 Progress Reports to the public last month, the DOE made a point of noting that charter schools received more A's than did their regular public school counterparts. Technically that's true, but technically is about as far as it goes. When we compare the charter middle school A's to the public middle school A's for example, we see that the Progress Reports offer little evidence of better student achievement. In fact, in spite of an uneven playing field that should have tilted the scores in favor of the charters, the Progress Reports actually indicate that when it comes to academics, the middle school charters that got A's did not do that well.

All told, about 30 reports for the 2010-11 school year have been posted online so far, and they include material as varied as the most mundane of details and education jargon and the kind of small, qualitative insights into schools that cannot be found in test scores.

Here's what the newly released scores for the 2011 administration of the National Assessment of Educational Progress show for fourth and eighth graders in reading and math, on a 500-point scale

We investigate the effectiveness of Idaho charter schools relative to traditional public schools, using the average difference in test score gains in the two sectors as well as the student fixed effects estimator favored in the literature.  Our findings are quite sensitive to the choice of estimator.  When student fixed effects are included, charter schools appear more effective than traditional public schools in the elementary grades.  When student fixed effects are omitted, this is no longer true.  We attribute the difference to biases associated with heterogeneity in schools and in the quality of school-student matches when the fixed effects estimator is used.  We find much less evidence of selection bias, the standard rationale for the fixed effects estimator. 

Tomorrow, the education world will get the results of the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often referred to as the "nation's report card." The findings - reading and math scores among a representative sample of fourth and eighth graders - will drive at least part of the debate for the next two years, when the next round comes out. I'm going to make a prediction, one that is definitely a generalization, but is hardly uncommon in policy debates: People on all "sides" will interpret the results favorably no matter how they turn out.

The DOE would have us believe that the high school progress reports it released last week are a neutral evaluation tool where any school can do well irrespective of student demographics and characteristics. As proof it would point to its peer index metric which sorts schools into peer groups based on student characteristics and their eighth grade standardized test scores - the concept being that schools are compared to schools with similar students. Unfortunately the system doesn't work the way it was intended.

in opposition to the idea of tying the evaluation of teachers and principals to student test scores.  In 2010 the NY State Legislature modified the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) of teachers and principals in an effort to gain Race to the Top Funds from the US Department of Education.

There are many excellent public schools in the United States-schools that receive distinguished awards, produce students with perfect ACT scores, and send their graduates to elite institutions of higher education. Yet within these same schools, you can find students experiencing none of these things firsthand, many of them students of color and from low-income families. I know this because I am the superintendent of just such a school, and my school is working hard to erase these divisions.

"John King recently resigned as New York state's education commissioner after a tumultuous tenure in which he helped create and implement a controversial education evaluation system and rushed the implementation of the Common Core State Standards and aligned testing. (He is now going to work as a top assistant to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who apparently thought the controversy that King created was just fine.)  That evaluation system, known as APPR, required that 20 percent of an educator's evaluation be based on student standardized test scores. Now, New York Schools Chancellor Merryl Tisch wants to make new changes. What are they and why would they take a flawed evaluation system from bad to worse? This post explains."

"Gov. Andrew Cuomo's forthcoming State of the State address is expected to focus on what can be done to improve public education across the state. If he is serious about the issue, he will have to move beyond peripheral concerns and political score-settling with the state teachers' union, which did not support his re-election, and go to the heart of the matter. And that means confronting and proposing remedies for the racial and economic segregation that has gripped the state's schools, as well as the inequality in school funding that prevents many poor districts from lifting their children up to state standards."

"New York officials recently released the results of the state's 2014 Common Core State Standards-aligned exams. In this post information award-winning Principal Carol Burris of South Side High School  in the Rockville Centre School District, explains what they mean. Burris has been writing about problems with the controversial school reform efforts in her state for some time on this blog. "

"Our schools can be laboratories of democracy, controlled by local citizens, connected to the life blood of the community, preparing children to engage with and transform the world they are entering. The documentary series, A Year at Mission Hill shows what such a school looks like, and how it cares for the students, and nurtures their dreams as they grow. Most of us entered teaching with this vision in mind. But our schools can also be the place where dreams are squashed. A place where students are sorted into winners and losers based on their test scores. Students who are given academic tasks that are beyond their ability or developmental level become frustrated and discouraged. When I taught 6th grade math in Oakland, one of my greatest challenges was the many students who arrived and would write on my introductory survey, "I am bad at math." These self images form early, and the scientific precision of our tests creates a false portrait that becomes indelible when reiterated time and again come test time. What we are creating is a system that says "If you are bad at math, and these many other difficult things on our tests, you are not prepared for college or career, and you are worthless." Why do we have a system that compels us to label and sort our students in this way? "

"A few weeks ago, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published teacher evaluation results for the district's public school teachers in 2013-14. This decision generated a fair amount of controversy, but it's worth noting that the Tribune, unlike the Los Angeles Times and New York City newspapers a few years ago, did not publish scores for individual teachers, only totals by school. The data once again provide an opportunity to take a look at how results vary by student characteristics. This was indeed the focus of the Tribune's story, which included the following headline: "Minneapolis' worst teachers are in the poorest schools, data show." These types of conclusions, which simply take the results of new evaluations at face value, have characterized the discussion since the first new systems came online. Though understandable, they are also frustrating and a potential impediment to the policy process."

"The civil rights groups apparently are unaware if the history of standardized testing, and its ties to the eugenics movement. I wrote about that in chapter 4 of "Left Back." Historically, standardized tests were used to deny educational opportunities to under served groups and to re-enforce theories of white supremacy, based on test scores. Like school choice, standardized testing was a weapon used by racists to deny civil rights, not a force for civil rights."