We received our Academic Performance Index (API) results Monday, September 13, and pumped our fists since our school, middle-of-the-road as far as our district goes, reached a score of 908.
Almost any school reaching 800 or above is considered fine and dandy, but according to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) benchmarks a couple of the schools in my district, though showing an API of 900 or higher, are considered ‘program improvement’ schools. That’s right. A disaggregated group did not reach the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) state goal of 56.8% in English/Language arts, 58% in Math.
The glitches in federal guidelines and state benchmarks, long warned about, are beginning to show up. Of course, the school district immediately began to examine scores of the students who stayed at ‘basic’ or below, i.e. not good enough, and as we already knew, it was the special services students who didn’t make the grade. Those small number of students are spread through the grades and so there aren’t enough to label my school ‘program improvement,’ especially since the younger students managed to make a good enough score.
Loud wailing about the weaknesses of the NCLB inspired exams and benchmarks set in 2002 continue all over the country.
But 67% of Americans think the public schools are ‘in crisis’? As usual, statistics and polls must be read with caution–including Time magazine who paid for the poll. What does the question mean? No one in my school district, parents or educators, would say we’re in crisis as far as learning success. Budget yes, learning, no.
I read, however, in The San Francisco Chronicle an opinion article that STAR tests aren’t secure, that is, old test examples can be modeled and even correct answers handed out, though I don’t know what evidence indicates that illegal activity. Not at my school.
In my Masters classes, however, we have discussed tests like California’s STAR testing which will have to change now that the legislature and state Department of Education have agreed to Common Core Standards.
About time! Special services students as well as high-achieving students might do better if the way to account for successful learning changed. Right now a multiple-choice exam once a year is the easiest to score, disaggregate, and analyze. Perhaps the experts should look at some other ways to find out if students, from high-achievers, special service students and all the diverse groups in between, are learning to read and do math well enough to think through to the meaning.
In an article by Susan Engel, director of the teaching program at Williams College, I was reminded of using and analyzing reading samples which is the reason I want to get funds for iPod-Touch tools. In fact, that type of reading sample has been used in many schools to analyze reading and English Language Development.
Ms. Engel also suggests that we don’t need to obsessively follow each and every student every year to see how a particular school is doing. Using that instrument to punish teachers is not going to improve a school. I know this blog has enumerated a number of models that would keep public schools strong without being dependent on tests only.
Right now, of course, I’m just happy that this year my students are willing to learn without having to coax them every step of the way.
*For more see Susan Engel, The New York Times “Scientifically Tested Tests” September 20, 2010.
*See Time Magazine’s print article abridgement of the poll done by ABT SRBI, August 17-19, 2010.
