Archive for the ‘Academic Performance Index’ Category

What It Takes

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

With hoopla about grants for Race To the Top, in an effort to turn around high schools in dire need of help; gung-ho proposals about grants for elementary schools; and constant brouhaha over teacher’s union opposition to change, it’s just plain great to see an article about a school that has actually succeeded.

Not only succeeded, it’s in a low-income pocket of my neighborhood on the San Francisco peninsula, known for high-flying salaries and mega-homes and students who expect to go to Stanford, UC Berkeley, or an Ivy League university.  Leroy Anderson Elementary reached the goal of every elementary school with “at risk” students-an Academic Performance Index (API) 800+.

Reading the article “Learning to Teach to Bridge the Achievement Gap” by Phil Yost, New York Times, November 20, 2009, the qualities of a successful school filled the page.  The article covered highly-qualified teachers willing to pursue the achievement goal, dedicated administrators, curriculum changes shown to improve the capabilities of low-performing students, known successful teaching techniques, regular consistent assessment and analysis, and parent inclusion.

Why can’t all elementary schools with low test scores do what Anderson Elementary did, even in California, the land of no money for schools?

Certain requirements are only inferred in Yost’s article which must be present or developed in the effort to close the achievement gap in a school.

First and foremost, a cadre of teachers, who know the goal and stand by it, must agree to stay at the school.  They understand the difficulties to overcome and will not back away or obstruct.  The teachers are expected to be leaders, listened to by the administrators and asked to research and help organize the curriculum changes that will be needed.

Second, the school needs administrators who are determined to see the change through.  They must be partners with the teaching staff in developing and/or preparing for the reading/language arts and math models.  They must not give up when students don’t improve right away.  They must hold off district personnel who want to try the next big thing.  They must be relentless in the consistency of the program, but watch constantly to improve what isn’t effective.

Third, in spite of what one reads about improvement possible even when the funding picture is bleak, it helps to have a district office on the side of the school.  To turn around a school, it’s good to be a small school in a small district, easier for district personnel to keep in mind the issues the school faces.  (Moreland School District has 5 elementary schools and 1 middle school with about 4000 students total.)

When parents at the school need a program, as at Anderson, to learn English and parenting skills to support their children, the district must have helped find the money.  When teachers say they will tutor students after school, the district will find the money.  When the school principal wants professional development time set aside to analyze test data that drives the curriculum, the district doesn’t put her off, but finds the money.

Finally, when Charles Weis, Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools (where Anderson Elementary is found), makes general statements about knowing which schools need help and how to help them, it’s not good enough.  If he’s on the side of school reform in low-performing, “at risk” schools, is he working with the district superintendents, the teacher’s unions, and school boards to set a time table for change and not back down?

Jonathan Alter in “Teddy’s Rightful Heir” Newsweek, November 9, 2009, suggests that is happening at the federal Department of Education.  “He (President Obama) and Arne Duncan are showing some Chicago muscle….”

Do what it takes.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Academic Performance Index, Arne Duncan, Race to Top, highly qualified teachers, low-performing schools, program improvement, public schools, school reform, successful schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Learning Math in the USA

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

How can we be doing so badly?  The richest country in the world and our kids can’t get a decent math test score on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

hands-on math in textbook

hands-on math in textbook

That, at least, is the judgment based on data from the 2009 Nation’s Report Card released Wednesday, October 14, 2009, and noted in many national newspapers.  The San Francisco Chronicle, “State’s math scores near bottom” by Jill Tucker, says, “California consistently has ranked among the lowest-scoring states”–third from the bottom after this year’s testing sample, only Alabama and Mississippi with lower scores.

On the other hand, except for once every two years when the Nation’s Report Card test scores hit the newspaper, only a few people in the education world know the test was given.  When teaching, I never knew a school or teacher who had given the test.  I’d never seen an example of the test.

It’s a bet that only math gurus at the State Department of Education know fourth grade math proficiency has grown from a scale score 208 in 1992 when the test was first given in California to 232 this year, compared to USA national average 239.  The bad news is two years ago fourth graders had almost the same paltry score-230–out of a possible 500 scale score (a statistical tool to compare data from all 50 states).

The final insult is only 35% of California fourth graders learned enough of the federal math standards to achieve scale scores considered proficient or advanced.

How can that be when the level of proficiency or better on the California Standards Test (CST) used as a growth benchmark for the California Academic Performance Index (API) and the national Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) report has shown considerable improvement?

How? Why?

After much clicking through data on the National Center for Education Statistics’ unfriendly website, the following was disgorged about California NAEP math scores:

1) 7400 of 6 million California students were tested

2) 310 schools agreed to give the test in Fresno School District, San Diego Unified, and Los Angeles Unified

3) where the largest groups of English Language Learners (ELL) in the state reside.

No wonder the scores are weak (ELL average scale score 211).  Every California school district already knows that the achievement gap in the state is most disparate for students who speak little English.

Seems like, as teachers say all the time, too many exams.  Teachers in-the-know are busy looking at in-school assessments, using on-site data to make teaching decisions for improvement in state standards math instruction.

Nevertheless, newspaper articles and various reports about NAEP student failure point to four problems.

1) Every state has different math standards, some too easy, some too broadly defined, none matching the federal standards.

2) State assessments are too easy or don’t assess the most important math standards.

3) State proficiency benchmarks are too low.

4) Teacher preparation, credentialing, and professional development aren’t good enough, often blamed on teacher’s union policies.

What to do?

Most teachers will say, get on with it, create common standards, assessments, and benchmarks between states for math education.  Another well-kept secret, 48 states have agreed to do so.  An example is the New England Common Assessment Program.

Most important by far, states need to step up and fork over the money to “turn around” low performing schools which all those achievement gap ELL students attend.  Various studies have documented a small number of excellent schools for “turn around” models.*

Once attendance is secured, high standards made clear, parents involved, teachers well-supported, the curriculum may begin to stress critical thinking skills, the way to pass any test with flying colors, no matter who gives the exam.

*The school community wants to talk about this dilemma?  Take Care!, showing ways for the school community’s adults to resolve problems successfully,  may help.  See the website for this blog.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Academic Performance Index, Annual Yearly Progress, Nation's Report Card, low-performing schools, public schools, school community |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Better Off in “Basic Aid” School?

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

These days, savvy California parents with school-age children, looking for a place to live in a school district with stable finances, might search in a “basic aid” school district.

"basic aid" school in Los Altos, CA

"basic aid" school in Los Altos, CA

Those schools are usually thought to be found in high personal income communities, with high academic ratings and highly-qualified teachers.  A parent would be happy when the realtor discovered the perfect house.

Turns out nothing is perfect.  Every school unique.

If the realtor found a delightful dwelling in up-scale Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, the family might be surprised that Beverly Hills Unified School District-fabulous student academic achievement; clean, up-to-date facilities; elite teacher corps-depends on “revenue limit” funds.

On the other hand, an oil man, buying a home in the Kern County Taft Union High School District, would find his children in a “basic aid” district, reaping the property taxes from the oil companies sitting on vast oil fields in the Central Valley.  The families with children attending TUHSD, however, have the lowest average personal income levels in the state. The schools are identified as Program Improvement (PI) under No Child Left Behind and student educational needs put a huge stress on the “basic aid” funds.  It relies heavily on state and federal categorical funds like Title I to support its programs.

How can it be so?

Settlement of the Serrano vs. Priest cases in 1972 and 1976 by the California Supreme Court, brought students under the equal opportunity protection of the law.  (Read Paradise Lost by Peter Schrag for the whole picture.)

The state then guaranteed each district a specific amount of funding per student per year, based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA).  Those “revenue limit” funds were based on property taxes raised in 1972-73.  For 35 years those monies have been adjusted by the state from other sources to equalize the revenue to each district.  Most of the approximately 1000 school districts in California rely on state “revenue limit” funds to set the yearly budget.

In 1978 Proposition 13 passed and property taxes became a huge thorn in the side for every school district.  It turns out some school districts actually had more property tax available within the school district boundary than would have been received from the “revenue limit” allocation.  Those districts are known as “basic aid” districts, about 100 or so in California this year.

Remember, all is not perfect.

Look at two adjoining “basic aid” elementary school districts in the affluent Silicon Valley where some of the most expensive property in the United States is found.  Los Altos School District’s Academic Performance Index (API) for 2008-09 was 959.  Can’t do much better, except for its few socio-economically disadvantaged students who barely made the grade on the NCLB Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) scale.

Meanwhile next door, “basic aid” only since July 2009, the Mountain View Whisman School District’s API rating was a respectable 822.  However, with a far more diverse student population, two of its schools are designated PI and must “turn around.”

Listening to Los Altos school board candidates, many questions came up about the antagonistic exchanges with the charter school that uses property in the district boundary.  No one brought up the need for schools, even high-performing ones, to devise plans to analyze test data to enrich the curriculum for high-achieving students as well as support low-performing students.

Reading the local newspapers, MVWSD is consumed with issues that can drain money from its  “basic aid” funds.  For example, property tax money doesn’t relate to student enrollment, so when one school loses and another bulges with students, arguments ensue.

What about the main problem for this “basic aid” district:  Program Improvement and “turn around?”  PI means professional development; teachers to work with low-performing students; a staff that communicates well; a plan to analyze testing data and account for the improvements all students must make; district administrators that realize the time and effort it will take.

School boards have difficulty focus on these tough issue, and such a “turn around” gives all districts a tight budget headache.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Academic Performance Index, Annual Yearly Progress, No Child Left Behind Act, highly qualified teachers, low-performing schools, public schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Pay for Performance?

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

How did the business model term, “pay for performance,” morph into the preferred way to assess teachers–by the number of student’s proficient on a test?

The issue has risen in an effort to turn around low-performing schools.

In 1992 the California state legislature set rules to allow charter schools, financed with the same money that would otherwise go to a traditional public school, often perceived as playing on the monetary issue.

Over time, according to statistics from state exams that public-financed charter school students must take, elementary charter school performance is “neither better nor worse” than traditional public schools.

Pay, however,  is often an issue.  See “As More Charter Schools Unionize, Educators Debate the Effect,” by Sam Dillon, The New York Times, July 27, 2009.

So, what next?

Advocated by the Department of Education’s Race to the Top plan to close the achievement gap in low-performing schools, one strongly advised mechanism to improve student achievement is “performance pay.”

Somehow, based on their students’ scores on one test and parent feedback, teachers will find the offer of better pay an incentive to work harder.  While the model may provide an incentive to complete tasks in the office or factory in an efficient manner, thus improving production, that is not how a school is organized.

A successful school is one where children are supported by teachers who know the curriculum and the best strategies to teach.  The parents, staff, and administration animate students to learn and the buildings are safe.  Exams are one tool used to analyze where students are doing well and where they need another technique or tool to master the subject.  Such a school needs adequate funds, but “performance pay” is not the incentive.

In California for a few years before the state budget went haywire, “school-based pay” bonuses were the rage.  Successful schools, measured by the state’s Academic Performance Index (API), received a substantial amount of money to use at the school site.  Rumbles of discontent began to surface over which schools received awards and why, but the plan was dropped when funds dried up.

Some schools in some districts, Los Angeles Unified for one, have tried various plans, often called “merit pay.”  Teachers vote to waive tenure and the salary schedule negotiated by the local union for the possibility of making a larger salary if classroom instruction improves and their students do well on state exams.  Some plans have been dropped; none have become institutionalized yet.

Another plan is negotiated around “knowledge and skill-based” pay.  A district like Douglas County Schools in Colorado, set in a well-to-do area, has few problems with meeting benchmarks on state exams.  The plan addresses pay for extra duty, for professional development, for meeting goals on an evaluation plan.  The incentive pay relies on foundation support and grants.

On the other hand, the school where I worked in San Jose Unified School District with the goal of school improvement on the API, budgeted monies for time spent on professional development and leadership meetings after school hours, and set aside monies for substitutes to allow teachers to analyze test data and plan strategies to improve student learning.  Over time, student performance improved.

Here was a kind of “knowledge and skill-based” pay about which Robert Weil of American Federation of Teachers has remarked, “The best performance plans are standard operating procedure.”  See “Pay for Performance: What Are the Issues?” by Ellen R. Dalisio, Education World, 2006.

None of these models address this question:  how does performance pay help schools turn around when the sole burden on the teacher’s back is how well students do on a single test?

Here and Now in the Education World will look at those issues in the next post.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Academic Performance Index, American Federation of Teachers, Race to Top, low-performing schools, public schools, successful schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Questions the Tests Don’t Answer

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

Almost every teacher in the country will put his hands over his face at the mention of the assessments required by No Child Left Behind.  And he can come up with the reasons.

Written by a publishing company?  The summative test is made to cover the curriculum taught anywhere in the country, so the company can sell as many as possible.  No matter that the standards in one state aren’t the same as those in another.  (Another controversy to resolve.)

Tests written to satisfy the standards in one state?  Criterion referenced tests, as they are called, may test minor standards with large numbers of test items, built in to separate the proficient from the advanced, the ‘basic’ students from the proficient.  What does that tell anyone?  Perhaps which students have increased their understanding of the standards for a grade level, or maybe that they’ve mastered the tricks to test taking?

And what about the thousands of students with limited understanding of English?  They still have to pass the same test with the same required increase in points to reach the No Child Left Behind benchmarks each year as students who have been in the United States since birth.

Or students whose parents are working two jobs and don’t or can’t find the time to spend on take-home practice or reading or math or writing essays?  Or students with parents who had limited education themselves?  Many parents do manage and their children do well, but the achievement gap wouldn’t be like it is, if that kind of relentless, selfless support were achievable in all cases.

What about the often mentioned issue that the class spends so much time on preparation for the state test in reading and math that, except in schools with strong numbers of high-achievers, there is little time to spend on science and social studies, art and music?  There is a reason for all the emphasis on the 3 R’s.  Research has shown, on the SAT for example, constant practice can pull up performance scores, if that’s what is being asked for.

Well, why don’t they practice reading with the science text?  Great idea, except the test is focused on specific reading and language skills, not the science content which those texts, fabulous as they may be, cover for a grade level.

And what does the school find out from the API (California’s Academic Performance Index), a number that ranks a school among all 6000 elementary schools in the state?  Or from the AYP (United States Annual Yearly Progress), percentages that tell how far along a school is on the grid to become 100% proficient in reading and math by 2014?

It’s an indicator, but those numbers don’t help analyze the needs of the students who are not yet proficient reading and math learners.  So far in California, for example, only 40% of the elementary schools scored at least 800 (considered excellent) on the index, San Francisco Chronicle, “School Making Big Strides…”, May 22, 2009.

How does the teacher and school analyze the data and plan the reforms to improve learning for all students during a school year, not just for students almost ready to make the next leap?  That’s the important question to answer.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Academic Performance Index, Annual Yearly Progress, Education, Elementary, No Child Left Behind Act, public schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »