Tag Archive for 'AYP'

Location, Location, Location

Published by Robert Pondiscio on February 19, 2009 in Research and Reports and accountability. 1 Comment

The real estate agent’s mantra — location, location, location — also works for schools.  Just as an identical home can fetch different prices in different places, an identical school can make AYP in some states, but not in others. 

That’s the upshot of a terrific new report by the Fordham Foundation, The Accountability Illusion, which looked at 36 actual schools (18 elementary, 18 middle schools) and determined whether each one would make AYP under the accountability rules of 28 different states.  No, they would not. 

In Massachusetts – a state that ensures students have to score high in order to be considered proficient and one with relatively challenging annual targets and AYP rules – only one of 18 elementary schools was projected to make AYP. In Wisconsin, with lower proficiency standards and more lenient annual targets and rules, 17 schools were projected to do so. Same kids, same schools – different states, different rules.

“In short,” the report concludes, ”how a school is labeled under NCLB depends largely on the state in which it’s located. This can demoralize educators in states with tough AYP rules while letting under-performing schools in lenient states slip under the accountability radar screen. It also creates the illusion of a national accountability system where there isn’t one.”

Here’s the executive summary of Fordham’s report, and here’s a video interview with Checker Finn about it.  And if you are one of those who prefers to laugh rather than weep in the face of outrage, Mathew Ladner of Jay Greene’s blog turns this whole miasma into a parody of the Budweiser “Real Men of Genius” ad campaign.  “Here’s to you, Mr. Wisconsin No Child Left Behind compliance guy!” Hilarious.

Can we now officially say that accountability as currently conceived and practiced is a joke?  A bad school in Massachusetts is a good school in Arizona. Failure in Nevada is magically redefined as success when it moves to Wisconsin.  Our crazy quilt of accountability systems only breeds cynicism about the whole enterprise (why improve schools when you can lower the bar?) and makes it baby simple to evade responsibility and all but impossible to reach informed conclusions about your child’s school. 

One standard, one yardstick, or else don’t bother.  Instead of location, location, location, let’s try transparency, transparency, transparency.

Reading War II: Content Knowledge vs. Reading Strategies

Published by Robert Pondiscio on January 19, 2009 in Core Knowledge, Curriculum, Educational Policy, Literacy, Research and Reports and accountability. 11 Comments

If phonics vs. whole language was Round One of the reading wars, the new battle is shaping up to be reading strategies vs. content knowledge, says Dan Willingham at Britannica Blog.  “Like Round 1 of the battle, one side is mostly right (content knowledge) but there is some merit on the other side,” says Willingham, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia.

Most of us think about reading in a way that is fundamentally incorrect. We think of it as transferable, meaning that once you acquire the ability to read, you can read anything. That is true for only part of what it takes to read. It’s true for decoding—the ability to translate written symbols into sounds….But being able to decode letter strings fluently is only half of reading. In order to understand what you’re reading, you need to know something about the subject matter. And that doesn’t just mean that you need to know the vocabulary—you need to have the right knowledge of the world.

Willingham produced a YouTube video that underscores the connections between content knowledge and comprehension.  His blog post points out what virtually every elementary school teacher knows: once children learn to decode, reading instruction is almost exclusively focused on comprehension “strategies”–asking students to find the main idea of passage, identify the author’s purpose, etc.  Reading strategies work “but it’s a one-time boost,” he notes.  “Fifty sessions of practice is no better than five sessions of practice” since strategies serve mainly to give students a better idea of what reading is for.

In early grades, there is tremendous emphasis on decoding, and there must be. But this emphasis leads kids to feel that if they’ve decoded a passage, then they have read it, whereas teachers want them to have the idea that they shouldn’t be satisfied with decoding—they need to understand. Reading strategies help drive home this new notion of reading—that it’s about communication. Small wonder that practicing reading strategies gives no added benefit. Reading strategies are an easily-learned trick, like checking your work in math. Useful, to be sure, but not something that needs to be practiced.  I’ve discussed this matter in more detail here.

This is important stuff, dimly appreciated inside schools and as a practical matter, not at all in the education policy and advocacy communities.  The message needs to be delivered early, often and loud: boosting class time spent on reading instruction is of little use, and could actively be damaging kids if that time is coming at the expense of a well-rounded curriculum.  The title of Dan’s video says it best:  teaching content IS teaching reading.

“The tragic irony is that schools desperately trying to meet AYP are reportedly cutting time from subjects like social studies and science to devote more and more time to reading. Unless they are using content-rich reading materials, that strategy not only won’t work, it will actually backfire,” Willingham writes.

Willingham is not sanguine about that “people will be persuaded by what is truly a mountain of data,” but if it takes Round Two of the reading wars to drive this point into the consciousness of parents, policymakers and educators, the fight will be well worth it.

Suburban Schools Run Afoul of NCLB

Published by Robert Pondiscio on October 20, 2008 in accountability. 2 Comments

It’s been easy to shrug one’s shoulders and say that schools in trouble under NCLB deserve to be in trouble.  But when schools in well-regarded districts like Arlington, Virginia’s start finding themsleves in trouble, eyebrows will surely be raised.  The Washington Post reports the Hoffman-Boston Elementary School, where black students missed benchmarks this year, has become the first school in Northern Virginia forced to restructure because of lagging tests scores.  

What’s challenging is they are under a microscope, but they aren’t terribly different than other schools,” Mark Johnston, assistant superintendent of instruction in Arlington, said of the small school near the Pentagon. “I think there are reasons why schools don’t make targets, and it’s easy when those reasons are clear and evident. It’s not easy when they’re not.”

Expect to see more schools in unexpected places run into trouble.  “It’s not just going to be a problem of the inner city. It’s going to be a problem of many school districts,” Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy, tells the Post. “This will come as a surprise to a number of school officials and to the public.”

The Rent Comes Due on NCLB

Published by Robert Pondiscio on October 13, 2008 in Educational Policy. 3 Comments

Even successful schools in California are suddenly having trouble keeping up with mandated AYP, thanks to the performance equivalent of a mortgage balloon payment that kicked in this year, requiring all tested subgroups to make a sudden big leap. 

The New York Times looks at one such school, Prairie Elementary School in Sacramento, which has steadily improved each of its student groups — Hispanics, blacks, Asians, whites, American Indians, Filipinos, Pacific Islanders, English learners, the disabled — toward higher proficiency under NCLB.   But this year, they were required to jump by 11 percentage points. 

Across the nation, far more schools failed to meet the federal law’s testing targets than in any previous year, according to new state-by-state data. And in California and some other states, the problem traces in part to the fact that officials chose to require only minimal gains in the first years after the law passed and then very rapid annual gains later.

“And they’re asking for another 11 percent increase next year and the next, and that’s where I’m saying I just don’t know how,” says Fawzia Keval, Prarie Elementary’s principal. “I’m spending sleepless nights.”

“Part of the reason for the troubles was that the states gambled the law would have been softened when it came up for reauthorization in 2007, but efforts to change it stalled,” notes the Times’ Sam Dillon. ”This year Congress made no organized attempt to reconsider the law. With the nation facing urgent challenges, including two wars and economic turmoil, it could be a year or more before the new president can work with Congress to rewrite the law.”

Translation: Expect to hear this story over and over and over again.

Principal Apologizes for “Excellent” Rating

Published by Robert Pondiscio on July 23, 2008 in Assessment and Testing and Curriculum. 15 Comments

The principal of Rocky River Middle School in Ohio is sorry.

His school made AYP, earned an “excellent” rating from the state, and passed the 2008 Ohio Achievement. But principal David Root gave Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Regina Brett a remarkable two-page, single-spaced apology, addressed to students, staff and citizens of Rocky River, detailing the cost of those accomplishments. Among the things Root is sorry for:

  • That he spent thousands of tax dollars on test materials, practice tests, postage and costs for test administration.
  • That his teachers spent less time teaching American history because most of the social studies test questions are about foreign countries.
  • That he didn’t suspend a student for assaulting another because that student would have missed valuable test days.
  • For pulling children away from art, music and gym, classes they love, so they could take test-taking strategies.
  • That he has to give a test where he can’t clarify any questions, make any comments to help in understanding or share the results so students can actually learn from their mistakes.
  • That the integrity of his teachers is publicly tied to one test.
  • For making decisions on assemblies, field trips and musical performances based on how that time away from reading, math, social studies and writing will impact state test results.
  • For arranging for some students to be labeled “at risk” in front of their peers and put in small groups so the school would have a better chance of passing tests.
  • For making his focus as a principal no longer helping his staff teach students but helping them teach test indicators.

“We don’t teach kids anymore,” Root, a 24-year veteran principal, tells the paper. “We teach test-taking skills. We all teach to the test. I long for the days when we used to teach kids.”

Education Sector: Explaining NCLB policy issues

Published by CKF on November 1, 2007 in Assessment and Testing, Educational Policy and Research and Reports. 0 Comments

Education SectorFrom an Education Sector newsletter:

Education Sector’s Explainer series unpacks key school accountability issues!

Current education news and debates all seem to revolve around the federal No Child Left Behind Act and school accountability. Education Sector’s Explainer Series will help you make sense of these confusing education policy issues.

Education Sector’s Explainer series gives lay readers insights into important aspects of education policymaking. Explainers are designed to bring clarity to key, but complex, concepts and terms within the education landscape that often are misunderstood by the public. They are straightforward, cut-through-the-jargon guides that can be used alone, or as a reference when reading education news stories or research on related topics.

Recent Explainers have focused on deciphering some of NCLB’s fundamental features including how states set “cut scores” on their tests, what it means for states to make “adequate yearly progress” under the federal law, and how the controversial National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) works.

Read, reference, and share these Education Sector Explainers:

Making the Cut: How States Set Passing Scores on Standardized Tests

Passing or “cut” scores are a key factor in determining the rigor of state tests, which matter more than ever before under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Yet, when states and the media report student results on exams, they rarely include information on passing scores or the process by which they are determined. This Explainer describes how states set cut scores and why they matter.

States’ Evidence: What It Means to Make ‘Adequate Yearly Progress’ Under NCLB

Under NCLB, states must set performance targets for schools to meet, known as “adequate yearly progress,” or “AYP.” And those schools that do not meet these goals or “make” AYP face considerable consequences. But what does it really mean for a school to make AYP? This Explainer describes how NCLB’s complex accountability system works overall and in different states and discusses the basics of “making” AYP and the multiple routes schools can take to get there.

Understanding NAEP: Inside the Nation’s Education Report Card

The National Assessment of Educational Progress is one of the most trusted resources for comparing student achievement across states and demographic groups. But it is also one of the most complex tests in existence, leading to difficulty in interpreting and reporting its results. This Explainer is a guide to understanding NAEP’s complex features and the challenges ahead for the test in an era of increased accountability.

Education Sector
1201 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202.552.2840 – Fax: 202.775.5877
www.educationsector.org