Archive for the ‘Adequate Yearly Progress’ Category

Happy Holidays

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

I’m relieved. It’s December and my students are doing well. We’ve just reviewed the major math concepts they’ve learned since September and they haven’t forgotten much. We’ve completed a non-fiction reading and writing unit on Fact and Opinion. I’ve learned that the difference between fact and opinion, which may be obvious to an adult, is colored by TV and what parents say. It will be long years of experience before fourth graders can grasp the concept. I say grade four is just the beginning to understand the core standard.

For instance, last week, Friday, December 9, 2011, I read an article that caught my attention: “Funding, not reform, upgrades schools” by David Sirota, a well-known columnist. Although he included many facts, a few of which were new to me, the article was on the Opinion page of the San Francisco Chronicle.

On International student Assessment exams American students in low-income public schools are among the high-achieving. So are public schools “in crisis” as is the opinion of many? Another fact: the opinion that teachers’ unions are destroying public schools doesn’t hold up when the high Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) proficiency-a number fact and No Child Left Behind goal-is found in unionized public schools.

In addition, Sirota directs the reader to a report written by Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff of Stanford University in July 2010. The abstract states, “both income inequality and income segregation in the United States grew substantially from 1970 to 2000. Using data from the 100 largest metropolitan areas, we investigate whether and how income inequality affects patterns of income segregation along three dimensions-the spatial segregation of poverty and affluence; race-specific patterns of income segregation; and the geographic scale of income segregation. We find a robust relationship between income inequality and income segregation, an effect that is larger for black families than it is for white families. In addition, income inequality affects income segregation primarily through its effect on the large-scale spatial segregation of affluence, rather than by affecting the spatial segregation of poverty or by altering small-scale patterns of income segregation.”

Another report issued by the United States Department of Education “More Than 40% of Low-Income Schools don’t Get a Fair Share of State and Local Funds” November 30, 2011, shows that “high-poverty schools receive less than their fair share of state and local funding.”

Now, Sirota gives his opinion and guess what it is? That low-performing schools in low-income neighborhoods should get more money. But with the facts above, do I call it Opinion? I know what schools are like. Our school receives little Title I money, but I know teachers in schools that rely on those funds to cover tutors and extra personnel. Each time the budget is cut, another person leaves.

The question is will there ever be a funding policy, federal or local, that helps low-performing schools in poverty areas? It’s a good thought for the holidays when it is the opinion that Americans feel more generous.

Open School Doors for Little Ones

Wednesday, September 28th, 2011

In thirty-four months since January 21, 2009, thought in the education world has changed dramatically.

For instance, San Francisco Unified has become a field test district with a 3-year grant from S.D. Bechtel Foundation to try out Common Core Math Standards agreed to by 45 states in the U.S. (See “New take on math-will it add up?” by Jill Tucker, San Francisco Chronicle, September 27, 2011). The common core standards were developed from the haphazard standards of 50 individual states, revised and aligned with the guidance of the Council of Chief State School Officers and the oversight of the National Governors’ Association. To be sure, the standards can’t be mistaken for a takeover by the federal government.

Data driven analysis of student and school improvement has been adopted by many states. The talk is about how to evaluate teacher and school progress-not whether to evaluate. To the consternation of many, Oakland Public Schools in California, troubled for years, is planning to shut five schools in its effort to improve finances and the achievement of its students. On the other hand, legislation set in California to allow parent choice to get rid of staff, move to another school, or set up a charter school is coming about in low-income Compton USD.

And not least, the offer by the U.S. Department of Education to look at state plans to improve schools is an effort to provide a realistic chance to see student achievement mandated by No Child Left Behind. The adequate yearly progress (AYP) benchmarks, long seen as unlikely for every child to reach, can now be modified-not to fall back into the easy rut, but to set flexible and achievable goals.

Two news stories about four and five year olds beginning school should make anyone with interest in the world of education sit up and pay attention. We are seeing movement for policies endorsed by the federal government to expand Early Childhood Education.

This school year in California, the date by which a child may enter kindergarten has changed. September 1 is the cut-off date. It reduces the number of very young boys and girls who are asked to settle into the social and academic activities of the ten month kindergarten year. The expectation is that a child’s chronological age will more closely match his/her readiness to learn. In addition, the number of children held out of kindergarten by parents will be reduced, a controversial choice outlined in “Delay Kindergarten at Your Child’s Peril” by Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt In The New York Times, September 25, 2011..

Still, it will be to no child’s advantage if funding for Head Start is pulled out from under a wonderful program that most middle-class children have available to them from private sources. In the desire to cut the federal debt, conservative Congress members have proposed such short-sighted ideas. Especially in the current economy, poor children are the most vulnerable group in America. In 2010, 30+% of children 0-5 years old lived in families with income below the poverty line.

Now why would anyone think it was a bargain to cut funding that would leave those children behind in readiness skills to which other kindergarten children have access? And which leads to less likelihood of proficiency in the reading, language, math, science and history common core standards expected of every child in the United States by the time they graduate high school?

“The time has come…

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

To talk of many things”-Lewis Carroll. But talk about the lack of revision to ESEA (NCLB in its last iteration) is dominating the education world in September 2011.

rural school and district on Lopez Island, Washington

rural school and district on Lopez Island, Washington

The No Child Left Behind Act- President George W. Bush’s title for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)– was first authorized in 1965 under President Lyndon Johnson and revised every 5 years until the last alteration in 2001. Since then, all calls for adjustments have hit the high Congressional wall of inaction.

Who’s talking? National teachers’ unions NEA and AFT advocate change. The Council of Chief State School Officers exhorts Congress. Members of the National Governor’s Association have been in the forefront.

All across the country non-union teacher’s groups are the biggest voices: Educators4Excellence in New York; Teacher Plus in Boston, Indianapolis, and Chicago; Center for Teaching Quality in North Carolina, Denver, and Seattle to name a few.

What did the 2001 act provide? The legislation is lengthy and detailed. The sections on which most talk centers are “Improve the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged” and “Improving Basic Programs…” which delineate the main provisions of the act. Next, qualifications for teachers and paraprofessionals led to time-consuming paperwork to assure each teacher was “highly qualified.” Also, Innovative Programs morphed into advocacy for charter schools. The section “Improving Basic Programs” outlined the actions to show “adequate yearly progress” in reading and mathematics: in brief, each state must teach to its curriculum standards and provide outcomes on benchmark exams which would lead to 100% school proficiency in reading and math by 2014.

Why is NCLB so despised? All of these mandated programs are underfunded. As has been declared in this blog many times, it was clear to most teachers and administrators from the beginning that to have every student in a state reach grade level proficiency in two subjects by 2014 was a preposterous goal. The cost of upgrading curriculum standards and providing tests that give a single score by which to judge students is a contentious argument.

The ESEA legislation should have been revised by Congress in 2005-2006. It wasn’t. President Obama laid out revisions for Congress to take up in 2009 and March 2011. No go. In August 2011, the U.S. Department of Education used a provision in the legislation to offer waivers to the 2014 proficiency benchmark. States that could show consistent improvement in the four big administration priorities for ESEA revision would be authorized to alter their programs. The administration’s priorities are 1) working state data systems; 2) turn-around plans for low-performing schools; 3) improve experienced vs. new teacher distribution in low-performing schools; 4) boost curriculum standards in the state.

To create jobs in a stricken economy and to provide a further push to Congress, President Obama in his speech on September 8, 2011, recommended $60 billion to be divided among states to save teachers’ jobs and fix the infrastructure of school property. The inference was also to finish ESEA revisions.

Representative John Kline, Education Committee, commented on the high cost and more regulation, calling the program a teacher’s union bailout. Representative George Miller and Senator Tom Harkin of their respective Education Committees were more enthusiastic. So far Congressional revisions have been offered to bolster charter schools, eliminate forty programs under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Education (like the Star Schools Distance Learning Program), and flexible shift of federal funds (like Title 1) from poverty budget lines to special education.

What to our surprise! John Kline’s House Education committee has passed a vote on the charter schools revisions yesterday, September 13, 2011. On to a full house vote.

On the other hand, teacher’s organizations look for revision in school and teacher accountability rules and evaluation; stability in curriculum standards; and testing that leads to better learning rather than a score by which to berate teachers and students when the hurdle is not vaulted even though students may have leaped higher.

The time has come….

Same Test, Incomparable Results

Wednesday, April 27th, 2011

The once-a-year test will appear on students’ desks any day now. The school day will turn topsy-turvy to accommodate testing schedules. The exam-specified amount of time to complete each section must be provided while supervising speedy high-achieving students who are bored out of their mind and waiting for more deliberate test-takers to finish.

Death Valley Academy High School

Death Valley Academy High School

In California, since the No Child Left Behind Act was legislated, the exam switched from a generic standardized type summative test (assess all that has been learned in the current year and recalled from the past).  Now, a criterion-referenced summative exam with questions that reflect the California curriculum standards taught at each grade level is the model. Note that analysis of results gives you a lot of numbers and percentages, but the school’s or student’s results tell you little more than high-performing or low-performing.

Why is that true?

Think about Death Valley Academy High School in the tiny town of Shoshone, Inyo County, California. Hot, dry climate and desert flora and fauna. Expect to see a roadrunner on occasion. Two community colleges and one all-male private college are located in the area.

Think of Palo Alto High School in Palo Alto, north end of Santa Clara County, California’s Silicon Valley. Temperate weather, the remains of fruit orchards, and hills just right for cattle and mountain lions. Five universities and three community colleges are located nearby.

In 2010 on testing days, Death Valley Academy High School had a total of 35 students, grades 7-12. Seventeen students took the exam. The school wide proficiency for English/Language Arts (ELA) was 52.9%–9 students. The Math proficiency was 47.1%–8 students. Under statistical modifications for very small schools, DVHS met the federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets and received a California Academic Performance Index (API) scale score of 766. One hundred percent of the students graduate.

Look further. With 35 students and 7 staff members, all but one or two students should be proficient. Reviews tout the one-on-one assistance provided. DVHS receives school-wide federal Title I funds, based on the income levels of the families. However, some students must take a bus 60 miles to reach school. Less than half of the parents have any college education. English, math, history is provided, Driver’s Education, Spanish, PE, and Art. There is an athletic director and a girls’ volleyball coach. No tutoring or English language assistance was listed. There are so few Hispanic or Native American students, they are not even disaggregated in the AYP data, normally a huge factor in assigning scores to call a school high- or low-performing.

In 2010, Palo Alto High had 1850 students and over 100 teachers, grades 8-12. Four hundred seventy-two students were tested and received a California API score of 896. The AYP school-wide data showed 89.8% student ELA proficiency and 90% Math proficiency. With a high number of white and Asian students whose families are well-off technology company workers and Stanford University faculty, the graduation rate is 98%. Eighty-eight percent attend 2-4 year colleges and 79% go directly to 4 year colleges.

The school has 3 counselors, a librarian, psychologist, Speech/language therapist, and 5 Resource Specialists to address the needs of the socially diverse student demographics. The website shows several schedules, 20 AP classes, daily bulletins, myriad student activities, and an email tab for parents. No wonder the school does well, even with the strained budgets in the state’s distressed fiscal climate.

How are students in a tiny out-of-the-way school in Death Valley going to compete with high-achieving, well-supported students in Silicon Valley? API and AYP numbers do little but indicate the need for help.

Rather than bicker over small sums for vouchers or tenure for a quick fix, look at demographics and geography to determine solutions.