Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

For decades, research has confirmed that the big factor in determining how much students learn is not class size or the extent of standardized testing but the quality of their teachers. Policymakers have pushed mostly carrot-and-stick remedies: firing underperforming teachers, giving merit pay to high performers, penalizing schools with poor student test scores. People like Jim Knight think we should push coaching.

The school reform movement is obsessed with quantifying outcomes. Whether through standardized test scores, dropout rates or college acceptance rates, the coin of the realm is measurement. Yet there is another side of the story that is largely overlooked. It was highlighted in a cover piece in The New York Times Magazine on Sept. 18. In "What if the Secret to Success Is Failure?," Paul Tough focuses on the importance of developing character. He quite correctly recognizes that without it, students are shortchanged.

Press interest has been picking up the last couple weeks when it comes to the GOP contenders and education. Here are seven keys to keep in mind when making sense of what the Republican field is (and isn't) saying on that score.

Sherrie Martin, former teacher of the year at a Metro school, is questioning whether she really belongs in the classroom after scoring low on the state's new teacher evaluation. In Sumner County, Summer Naylor left her third-graders behind last month, resigning after eight years teaching. Too many mandates and evaluations made her job no longer fun. New evaluations pushed Robert "Bud" Raikes - the Smyrna High School principal who has a stadium named after him - into retiring early.

Jeff Pfeffer and I had a piece appear today in The New York Times "Preoccupations" column called "Trust the Evidence, Not Your Instincts."  We are pleased with the points it makes and how it reads, but as is inevitable given the space constraints in newspapers, the final version is a bit shorter than the piece we submitted. In particular, we wish there had been space to include our point that, not only has linking incentives to standardized test scores been generally ineffective, a nasty side effect is that such programs often drive teachers and administrators to cheat (giving students the right answers or erasing wrong answers and replacing them with right answers).

It has been a difficult year for public education.  A fiveyears' overdue reauthorization of the Elementary and  Secondary Education Act, whose 2002 version we call  No Child Left Behind (NCLB), languishes in a divided  Congress.  Now Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says  he will grant states unilateral waivers from the law's most  punitive consequences, but the catch is that to qualify,  states must present accountability plans based on Duncan's  own favorite punishments for schools unable quickly  to raise scores-including sanctions like merit pay and  reduction of due process for teachers, school closure, and  rapid charterization.  The rhetoric of  school reform has little to do with the  lives of children or the daily work of  teachers.  Meanwhile a deplorable wave  of scapegoating school teachers continues  unabated.  

The difficult business of devising a method to tie teacher evaluations to student test scores is on display in New York, where a judge ruled this week that the state Board of Regents overstepped the boundaries set by a new law, in crafting such a system.

State assessments are increasingly used as outcome measures for education evaluations and pretest scores are generally used as control variables in these evaluations. The correlation between the pretest and outcome (posttest) measures is a factor in determining, among other things, the statistical power of a study. This report examines the variability in pretest-posttest correlation coefficients for state assessment data on samples of low-performing, average-performing, and proficient students to determine how sample characteristics (e.g., achievement level) affect pretest-posttest correlation coefficients. As an application, this report illustrates how statistical power is affected by variations in pretest-posttest correlation coefficients across groups with different sample characteristics. Achievement data from four states and two large districts are examined. The results confirm that pretest-posttest correlation coefficients are smaller for samples of low performers than for samples representing the full range of performers, thus, resulting in lower statistical power for impact studies than would be the case if the study sample included a more representative group of students.

In several posts, I've complained about how, in our public discourse, we misinterpret changes in proficiency rates (or actual test scores) as "gains" or "progress," when they actually represent cohort changes-that is, they are performance snapshots for different groups of students who are potentially quite dissimilar.

D.C. schools officials have made their most significant modification yet to the IMPACT teacher evaluation system, one that allows educators who score consistently in the highly-effective range to skip the final three of their five annual classroom observations.

If you read the news magazines or watch TV, you might get the impression that American education is deep in a crisis of historic proportions. The media tell you that other nations have higher test scores than ours and that they are shooting past us in the race for global competitiveness. The pundits say it's because our public schools are overrun with incompetent, lazy teachers who can't be fired and have a soft job for life. Don't believe it. It's not true.

It should surprise no one that only 34 percent of New Yorkers approve of Michael Bloomberg's education policies, the policy area within which the Mayor most hoped to create a legacy. The Mayor not only introduced numerous questionable initiatives- ranging from school closings, to preferential treatment of charter schools, to attempts to rate teacher performance based on student test scores-he did so with an arrogant disregard not only for the most experienced teachers and administrators in the system, but of parents and community leaders and elected officials who tried to make their voices heard in matters of educational policy.

It's not like we didn't say this would happen. FairTest takes a look at what to anticipate from next week's release of ACT scores.

More States Tie Tenure, Bonuses to New Formulas for Measuring Test Scores

New York City education officials announced Thursday that they would end their effort to rank teachers based on their students' standardized test scores, adding a surprise twist to one of the most contentious issues facing the city's teaching force.

American policy makers and pundits are in love with some foreign education systems and are working hard to bring their policies and practices home. Others have national standards and a uniform curriculum, so should America (Chester E. Finn, Julian, & Petrilli, 2006). Students in China and India spend more time in schools, so should American children (Obama, 2009). Other countries use national exams to sort students, so should America (Tucker, 2011). Teachers in other countries receive more training in content, so should teachers in America (Tucker, 2011). "Teachers in Singapore are appraised annually" and "our current evaluation system is fundamentally broken," so America must fix teacher evaluation and hold them accountable for raising student test scores (Duncan, 2010).

For months-no, years-the ESEA discussion has been nothing short of maddening. While many pundits decry the lack of a "clear route to reauthorization," an obvious bipartisan solution has been sitting there, ready for the picking. It goes something like this: Step away from federal heavy-handedness around states' accountability and teacher credentialing systems; keep plenty of transparency of results in place, especially test scores disaggregated by racial and other subgroups; offer incentives for embracing promising reforms instead of mandates; and give school districts a lot more flexibility to move their federal dollars around as they see fit.

Educational reforms enacted through federal policies are directly impacting the voice of children, teachers, and teacher educators. The recently introduced bi partisan bill "Growing Excellent Achievement Training Academies for Teachers and Principals Act" frames a plan for state accreditation for teacher training academies based on student achievement. The newly introduced Race to the Top (RTT) competition, focused on early childhood, includes motivating states to receive some of the $500 million allotted to create ratings systems to score early childhood programs, write standards and related standardized tests, and expectations of what an early childhood teachers should know. Both the proposed bill and RTT competition are positioned to regulate with market driven ideology, reinforcing and reproducing social injustice and undermining democratic ideals.

One of the most important guiding principles in education is in loco parentis - we are morally and legally obliged to act "in place of the parent" when children are in our care.  That principle is the main reason for the sharply negative and visceral reaction I had when I read about John F. Kennedy High School using color-coded identification cards based on student test scores, and then a later article describing a similar program at Cypress High School (both in Orange County, California).  According to the Orange County Register, the different cards also led to different privileges around school, discounts on various purchases, and even led an administrator to insult a group of students in an assembly.  The policy has sparked  debate and quite a bit of criticism online (and in rather short order, the district announced that most of the discriminatory practices would be ended).  Anthony Cody wrote about it in his blog and I left some comments there and on Twitter, and the topic has been actively discussed on Huffington Post as well.

America's urban public schools are in trouble: Student test scores are low and dropout rates are high. Recent remedies proposed include everything from reducing the power of teachers unions and opening more charter schools to ending test-based accountability. But what if education critics are focused on the wrong problem?