Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Texas Education Agency data for the 2011-12 school year show that the number of elementary classes exceeding the 22-1 student-teacher ratio has soared to 8,479 from 2,238 last school year. Texas has had the 22-student cap for kindergarten through fourth-grade classes since 1984, and districts can apply for exemptions for financial reasons. But during the 2011 legislative session, to ease the pain of a roughly $5.4 billion reduction in state financing that did not account for the estimated influx of 170,000 new students over the next two years - and after an attempt to do away with the cap failed - lawmakers made those exemptions easier to obtain. Texas schools, which have shed approximately 25,000 employees this school year, including more than 10,000 teachers, have jumped at the chance to trim costs.

Changes to the state's testing program could leave public- schools kids in grades 3 through to 11 taking as many as nine exams per year in English and math - more than four times the current number, officials said yesterday. The potential jump comes from New York's participation in a federally funded consortium of 25 states that's seeking to make exams computer-based, more challenging and administered several times per year. The latest consortium plan calls for students to be tested as many as four times annually in math and five times a year in reading, starting in 2014.

As public school principals lead a growing insurgency against the state's new teacher-evaluation system, some teachers are beginning to question why their largest state union is defending the system and not supporting the principals' movement. Several presidents of local teachers unions told The Journal News that there is a growing dissatisfaction within their ranks with union leadership on the controversial system, which will grade teachers on a 100-point scale based in part on how their students progress on state tests.

The use of rate changes is still proliferating rapidly at all levels of our education system. These measures, which play an important role in the provisions of No Child Left Behind, are already prominent components of many states' core accountability systems (e..g, California), while several others will be using some version of them in their new, high-stakes school/district "grading systems." New York State is awarding millions in competitive grants, with almost half the criteria based on rate changes. District consultants issue reports recommending widespread school closures and reconstitutions based on these measures. And, most recently, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan used proficiency rate increases as "preliminary evidence" supporting the School Improvement Grants program. Meanwhile, on the public discourse front, district officials and other national leaders use rate changes to "prove" that their preferred reforms are working (or are needed), while their critics argue the opposite. Similarly, entire charter school sectors are judged, up or down, by whether their raw, unadjusted rates increase or decrease. So, what's the problem? In short, it's that year-to-year changes in proficiency rates are not valid evidence of school or policy effects. These measures cannot do the job we're having them do, even on a limited basis. This really has to stop.

More than 100 school districts in Texas have passed a resolution saying that high-stakes standardized tests are "strangling" public schools, the latest in a series of events that are part of a brewing revolt in the state where the test-centric No Child Left Behind was born. State-mandated standardized testing has become so dominant in Texas that, according to Denise Williams, testing director of the Wichita Falls Independent School District, high school students are spending up to 45 days of their 180-day school year taking them, according to the Times Record News. Students in grades three through eight spend 19 to 27 days a year taking state-mandated tests.

Without question, designing school and district rating systems is a difficult task, and Ohio was somewhat ahead of the curve in attempting to do so (and they're also great about releasing a ton of data every year). As part of its application for ESEA waivers, the state recently announced a newly-designed version of its long-standing system, with the changes slated to go into effect in 2014-15. State officials told reporters that the new scheme is a "more accurate reflection of … true [school and district] quality." In reality, however, despite its best intentions, what Ohio has done is perpetuate a troubled system by making less-than-substantive changes that seem to serve the primary purpose of giving lower grades to more schools in order for the results to square with preconceptions about the distribution of "true quality." It's not a better system in terms of measurement - both the new and old schemes consist of mostly the same inappropriate components, and the ratings differentiate schools based largely on student characteristics rather than school performance.

I have argued previously that unadjusted absolute performance measures such as proficiency rates are inappropriate for test-based assessments of schools' effectiveness, given that they tell you almost nothing about the quality of instruction schools provide, and that growth measures are the better option, albeit one that also has its own issues (e.g., they are more unstable), and must be used responsibly. In this sense, the weighting of the NYC grading system is much more defensible than most of its counterparts across the nation, at least in my view. But the system is also an example of how details matter - each school's growth portion is calculated using an unconventional, somewhat questionable approach, one that is, as yet, difficult to treat with a whole lot of confidence.

As a specialist in testing during a 33-year career spent working for New York City, I believe Pearson is to blame for the current mess we find ourselves in regarding the state exams, which are given to 1.2 million students each year in grades three through eight. But the state is even more culpable, making bad decisions about the design of the program, particularly the contractual requirements related to field testing. Now the partners are stuck, and neither can admit the situation is beyond repair. Here are my concerns, based on what I know about the Pearson experience and my many years in test research and development

Approximately three weeks ago teachers at Flushing High School began interviewing for their current positions at the turnaround school that will replace ours on July 1st-Rupert B. Thomas Academy at Flushing Campus.  In addition to preparing students for Regents exams and calculating final grades, my colleagues were working non-stop to gather portfolio materials and letters of recommendations for the reapplication process. Some had interviews during their lunch or prep periods while others still have yet to interview.  Whereas conversations around this time of the year generally include happy sentiments of completing another year, this time it was, "Did you go yet?  What did they ask?  How did you do?"  Colleagues who have successfully held their positions for anywhere from five to thirty years were dressed in their best business attire, pacing nervously in front of the conference room where the interviews were taking place.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the schools chancellor, Dennis M. Walcott, often boast that student performance is improving in New York City, as evidenced by the percentage of students passing state exams and graduating from high school. But a new analysis finds that most city students are holding steady, getting very similar test scores between third and sixth grades.

"I received my 'growth score' today from the New York State Education Department. I know,  I really shouldn't care what my score is. I know 100% of my students tested at or above grade level in Math and English Language Arts.  I know my class' scores were near or at the very top of my district's scores. I know my district is also at or nearly at the top of the region's and states' scores. I know I work my heart out and push my students to excel. My students always, ALWAYS  succeed. Yet according to the NYSED my growth score is so so. I'm rated effective with a growth score of 14 out of 20. Keep in mind, my student's mean scale in math  is 708.4 and ELA it is 678.  I'm confident both scores are well above that state mean. So why did I get a mediocre growth score? The state's explanation of it's calculation should be a eye opener for all  of us."

For this podcast, we spoke with Jack Buckley, commissioner at the National Center for Education Statistics, the center which administers the NAEP test. He took Early Ed Watch on a tour of the data from the most recent NAEP scores. Among the highlights is a trend that Buckley says suggests that students who are both at the top and bottom of their grade level may be improving-a finding contrary to the notion that No Child Left Behind has led teachers to focus on low-performing students at the expense of high-performing ones.

After a decade of concerns and criticisms about the lack of rigorous national standards in the No Child Left Behind Act, we now have a set of ambitious standards for use nationwide - the Common Core State Standards. Since their formulation two years ago, these standards have been adopted by 45 states, were made a precondition for funding in the Race to the Top competition, and have begun to influence the development of new curricula and assessments. But early childhood education - concerned with children from birth to the end of third grade - seems nearly an afterthought in the standards. Not only do they end (or begin) at kindergarten, ignoring more than half of the early childhood age range, they simply don't fit what we know about young children's learning and development.

Over the summer I posted the college-ready rates for old and new schools showing how the schools that were created under Michael Bloomberg actually have lower college-ready rates than the older schools with similar populations. The DOE college-ready rates are based upon how many students passed English and Math Regents with good grades (specifics on the data appears at the end of the post). We can accept this as a good measure or not, but in any case it is a viable measure in the eyes of DOE. The DOE updated the college-ready information when it released the high school Progress Reports this autumn, so I ran the analysis again. The results are the same, or maybe even worse.

I'd like to begin by thanking my teachers in the fifth, sixth and seventh grades, Mrs. Pulaski, Mr. Burke and Miss Elmer. They taught us percentages and showed us how to "round down," which I am doing now. The U.S. population is 312,624,000, and we have 3,198,000 public school teachers, which computes to 1%. But this is not the 1% composed of Wall Street fat cats, professional athletes, entertainers and other rich people. I guarantee there's no overlap between the two groups. The average teacher today earns about $55,000. At least 75 CEOs earn that much in one day, every day, 365 days a year. According to the AFL-CIO's "Executive PayWatch," the CEO who ranked No. 75, David Cote of Honeywell, was paid $20,154,012, for a daily rate of $55,216.47.

Here in NYC, while expanding the bureaucracy, increasing spending on education by 50 percent and raising teacher salaries by 40 percent, Bloomberg has also managed to eliminate thousands of teaching positions.  Class sizes this year in the early grades are the largest they have been in eleven years. The result?  Student achievement has stagnated.

There are many ways to use student test scores to evaluate schools. This paper defines and examines different estimators, including regression-based value-added indicators, average gains, and successive cohort differences in achievement levels. Given that regression-based indicators are theoretically preferred but not always feasible, we consider whether simpler alternatives provide acceptable approximations. We argue that average gain indicators potentially can provide useful information, but differences across successive cohorts, such as grade trends, which are commonly cited in the popular press and used in the Safe Harbor provision of federal school accountability laws, are flawed and can be misleading when used for school accountability or program evaluation.

By almost every educational measure, the Agora Cyber Charter School is failing. Nearly 60 percent of its students are behind grade level in math. Nearly 50 percent trail in reading. A third do not graduate on time. And hundreds of children, from kindergartners to seniors, withdraw within months after they enroll. By Wall Street standards, though, Agora is a remarkable success that has helped enrich K12 Inc., the publicly traded company that manages the school. And the entire enterprise is paid for by taxpayers.

The New York City reform model is centered upon closing 'failing' schools and opening new ones. Some of these 'failing' schools have been pillars of their communities for decades. One such school I read about in The New York Times is Jamaica High School in Jamaica, Queens. This large high school opened in 1925. But it is in the process, now, of being shut down. New York City rates schools on an A to F scale and if a school gets an 'F' or a 'D' or three consecutive 'C's, then it runs the risk of getting shut down. I thought I'd take a look at the last Jamaica High School progress report to see if there was anything 'interesting.' What I found is that Jamaica High School, in the 2009 to 2010 school year did very well on the regents component of their 'progress' score. They ranked, in fact, 164th out of 424 schools. In this post, I'll explain how the 'Weighted Regents Pass Grades' are calculated and how Jamaica High School fared quite well on this metric.  Below is from Jamaica High's 2009-2010 progress report.  The left bar graph is the comparison to their peer group and the right graph is the comparison to all city schools.  Click on the image to enlarge it.

This paper examines the challenges and potential solutions to evaluating high school teachers, looking first at practice-based evaluation and then turning to student performance as the basis for evaluation. In each case the stage is first set with a brief discussion of the overarching, across-grade issues that accompany each method.